Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Industrial and Commercial Staffs (Foreign Language Courses)

Mr. Norwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to institute special teaching of languages for staffs of firms who are engaged in exporting.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the provision of language courses to meet the needs of industry and he is in close consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are encouraging the provision of courses at technical colleges and colleges of commerce designed to enable industrial and commercial staffs to become fluent quickly in the oral use of foreign languages. Courses of longer duration are also widely available.

Mr. Norwood: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. He is aware, as we all are aware, of the barrier sometimes presented to exports from this country by the fact that our people have taken a somewhat insular attitude to the learning of foreign languages. I am sure that his Answer will give satisfaction to many people in business in that these courses will be more and more widely available.

Mr. Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman no doubt realises that we are glad that someone has gathered the scattered remnants of the Government here by 2.30. Does he realise that, at the Woolwich Technical College, there is a degree course

which specialises and has a specific side for languages? Would he look into encouraging a greater use of these courses, which are, at the moment, under-subscribed?

Mr. Redhead: I am not aware of the details of the specific case to which the hon. Member refers, but, in view of his observations, I should be very happy to look into it.

Manufactured Goods (Exports)

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of British exports of manufactured goods in 1951 and 1964 respectively, expressed in terms of 1951 prices.

Mr. Redhead: £2,167 million and about £2,900 million.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister of State agree that these figures, which show a considerable absolute increase in British exports over this period, are much more significant and creditable to this country than the other statistics which can be contrived to show a relative decline in the British share of total world exports, with which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so fond of making play, to the detriment of this country?

Mr. Redhead: The figures given, of course, imply an increase in the volume of exports between 1951 and 1964 of about one-third. It is right to acknowledge the achievements of British exporters in producing these results, while at the same time urging that, obviously, this country needs to do that much better.

Mr. Barber: In view of the fact that exports for May of this year were less than they were in May of 1964, 12 months ago, and that imports in May were an all-time record, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor's observation a week ago that we are turning the corner, or does he think that it was a little premature to say that?

Mr. Redhead: I would regard any one month's figures as an insubstantial basis upon which to establish the long-term trend. If we take a view over the first four months of the year, we can take an encouraging view of the prospects for the future.

Pharmaceutical Goods

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the sale of pharmaceutical goods has been registered with the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): On the assumption that the hon. Member is referring to registration under the Resale Prices Act, I understand from the Registrar that the answer is "Yes".

Mr. Ridley: Do the Government intend to take any action to ask the Registrar not to investigate these goods, in view of the fact that they voted against their inclusion when the Resale Prices Act was being debated? How can the right hon. Gentleman square this with his attitude only a year and a half ago?

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman has any familiarity with this Act, he will realise that the matter is now in the hands of the Registrar and the courts and that it is not for me to interfere.

Mr. Ridley: But could not the right hon. Gentleman stick to his convictions and introduce legislation to exempt them, if that was why he voted against their inclusion in the Act in the first instance?

Mr. Jay: I am bound by the Acts of Parliament as passed by this House and, under the existing legislation, this matter is now in the hands of the Registrar and the courts.

Industrial Development, Scotland

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had regarding the effect of migration on industrial development in Scotland; and what measures he proposes to take to assist development in areas which at present do not qualify for designation as development districts.

Mr. Jay: Some local authorities have drawn attention to the effect of migration on industrial development in Scotland. The Government's national and regional economic planning is designed to establish where serious problems occur and to propose appropriate remedies where these are called for.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman really appreciate how serious this problem is? Is he aware that while we wait, on account of the lack of decision in this matter, the development of existing industry which might otherwise take place is not taking place and, in the meantime, many young people are having to leave certain areas of Scotland?

Mr. Jay: Concentration on unemployment to the exclusion of migration as a criterion for action in the development districts was one of the many erroneous mistakes of the former disastrous Tory Administration. We hope to do better.

Mr. Peter Emery: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider supporting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology in his approach to the Treasury in trying to get the investment allowance position increased, which the present Finance Bill is decreasing to the detriment of these areas?

Mr. Jay: The Question is about migration from Scotland. Although, according to the legislation passed by the party opposite, in deciding on the development districts we are bound to take account of unemployment, nevertheless, in the grant of I.D.C.s, which are also important, it is reasonable to take account of migration also.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the former Administration initiated an inquiry into the situation in south-east Scotland and the Borders and that the Government are now refusing to have the results of that inquiry, when they are received, published?

Mr. Jay: We propose to introduce, in due course, some further legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—to replace the Local Employment Act, which expires in March, 1967. The right hon. Gentleman will find that legislation much more sympathetic to this problem than that introduced by the former Government.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in Scotland regard the principal defect of the Local Employment Act, which was passed by the former Government, to be the real curse of Scotland in so far as it has failed


to help the counties of the Borders and the east coast of Scotland? While appreciating the efforts which my right hon. Friend is now making, may I ask whether he is aware that we have been waiting for over a decade for help in the depopulated counties? Can we rely on something more in the way of help being produced in the near future?

Mr. Jay: I assure my hon. Friend that we mean to do better than the previous Government.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Productivity (Monopolistic Practices)

Mr. Hamling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him by manufacturers' associations to increase productivity by abandoning monopolistic practices.

Mr. Jay: I have received no such representations.

Mr. Hamling: Is it not about time that my right hon. Friend did?

Mr. Jay: That rests with the trade associations to which my hon. Friend refers rather than with me.

Mr. Barber: Is it not a fact that leading industrialists are co-operating with the Government to increase productivity in the discussions which are going on, particularly in N.E.D.C.? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what representations have been made to him by trade unions on this matter?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. That is quite true and that is why it is rather foolish of the Opposition to suggest that there is some feud between the Government and industry in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is also in consultation with trade unions on this issue.

Sir C. Osborne: Is not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has received no representations on this issue evidence that the allegation is unfounded? Is he not aware, from his own experience, that

business is sick of being the football between the parties? Is he not aware that we want to leave business alone to get on with the task of exporting?

Mr. Jay: To some extent I agree, but what is desirable is not so much to leave business alone as to ensure cooperation between business and the Government to solve this problem.

Travel Agencies

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to protect holidaymakers against the effects of bankruptcies in the travel trade.

Mr. Bessell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will now take to ensure that prospective holidaymakers are not defrauded by capitalised travel agents or travel agent companies.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I have at present nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 17th February.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern among the clients of one or two travel agency firms in this country at the ability of those firms to see the summer through? Is he aware that the holidays of many people will be jeopardised as a result and that some legislation on this matter is urgently required?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. I am aware of all that my hon. Friend has in mind, and legislation is being considered.

Mr. Marten: In the meantime, will the hon. Gentleman take every opportunity to bring to the notice of holidaymakers the danger of going to not very reputable travel agents?

Mr. Mason: I purposely made a statement in the House about two months ago drawing the attention of holidaymakers to reputable travel agents and the need to make very cautious inquiries. It should also go on record that the Association of British Travel Agents and the Travel Trade Association has started developing funds and accounts rules to protect holidaymakers in future and also to enhance their reputations.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will we have this legislation this Session?

Mr. Mason: That is very doubtful.

Freedom Group

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an investigation under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, into the financial affairs of the Freedom Group, which is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders, in view of the difficulties experienced by shareholders in obtaining repayment of loans.

Mr. Murray: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the difficulties experienced by shareholders in obtaining repayment of money invested with the Freedom Group and of the fact that this company is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders, if he will cause an investigation to be held under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948.

Mr. Rhodes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint an inspector to conduct inquiries under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, into the financial affairs of the Freedom Group, which is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders, in view of the fact that shareholders are experiencing difficulties in obtaining repayment of loans.

Mr. Robert Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an inquiry, under Section 165 of the Companies Act, into the National Fellowship, the People's League for the Defence of Freedom, the Free Press Society and the Anti-Socialist Front, in view of the difficulties they are creating for shareholders in obtaining repayment of moneys lent in good faith.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that shareholders with money invested in the Freedom Group are having difficulty in securing repayment of their money; and, in view of this fact, if he will appoint an inspector under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, to inquire into the financial affairs of the Freedom Group, which is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders.

Mr. Jay: The Freedom Group, the National Fellowship, the People's League

for the Defence of Freedom, the Free Press Society and the Anti-Socialist Front are not companies and Section 165 of the Companies Act does not, therefore, apply to them.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not scandalous that, under the guise of higher moral values in politics and economics, Edward Martell has been able to persuade people to send him large sums of money by issuing a false prospectus and a personal guarantee for the return of loans on request at 14 days, which we now know has resulted in broken promises and a trail of dud cheques? In view of the details which have been sent to my right hon. Friend about the latest Martell dodge to escape repaying this money, can he not take some action to protect the public or warn them that this latest device is a blatant case of barefaced robbery?

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend's Question asked about the Companies Act, and have answered it. He must take responsibility for the statements which he has made today about various individuals. Of course, if there are people who have been aggrieved or damaged in this way, the ordinary remedies of the law are open to them.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand a thick dossier of cases of people who have tried to obtain the repayment of loans, of sums varying between £50 and £1,050, and that all that they have got have been evasions, lies and bouncing cheques? Since we are witnessing the decline and fall of the Martell empire, surely my right hon. Friend is able to suggest ways and means of protecting the public in future from this kind of racketeer whose personal guarantees are worthless?

Mr. Jay: Future legislation is, of course, another matter, but if the statements which my hon. Friend makes are correct—and I can neither confirm nor deny them—I advise those concerned to take legal advice.

Mr. Murray: Since Mr. Martell is now going to set up a limited liability company to take over his own debts, is it not time that my right hon. Friend protected the consumers in this case—persons who are being bilked—and stopped this latest Horatio Bottomley of the 'sixties?

Mr. Jay: I do not wish to answer hypothetical questions, but I think that I am safe in saying that if Mr. Martell or anyone else proposes to set up a company, then that would come under the provisions of the Companies Act.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand a letter from a firm of solicitors stating that one of its clients has loaned over £1,000 to the various groups presided over by Mr. Martell and that every effort to get the return of the loans has completely failed? Is it not a scandal that a political mountebank of this character can exploit credulous people, and even though they are ex-colonial blimps and ex-generals, do they not need some protection from this House?

Mr. Jay: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I must repeat that these people should take legal advice.

Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I also have documents in my hand—[Interruption.] It would be a poor hon. Member indeed who did not have such documents—showing that Mr. Edward Martell, while preaching freedom, has been practising licence in the most scandalous possible way, and will my right hon. Friend initiate an urgent public inquiry?

Sir G. Nicholson: Surely it is impossible to protect people from their own political gullibility? After all, many of them voted Labour at the last election.

Mr. Jay: If that were not so, of course, no one would ever vote Tory.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Mr. Murray: Further to that point of order. I also beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even for the hon. Member I cannot perpetrate duplicity.

Cotton Yarns (Import from Malta)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of cotton yarns were imported into the United Kingdom from Malta in

the year 1964 and in the first quarter of 1965; and what proportion of these quantities was produced in Malta.

Mr. Redhead: 851,000 lb. and 551,000 lb. respectively, all of which was, I understand, produced in Malta.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Were not these yarns produced from a single mill in Malta, which was built with financial assistance from the United Kingdom given on the strict understanding and undertaking that no such yarn would be exported to the United Kingdom until 1966? Why in those circumstances have Her Majesty's Government allowed the import of this yarn in flagrant breach of the undertaking given?

Mr. Redhead: It is correct, as the hon. and learned Member said, that there is only one yarn producer in Malta and that he gave an undertaking in the terms suggested. Therefore, the firm has certainly exported in breach of the undertaking which formed part of the agreement to which the hon. and learned Member referred under which it received financial assistance from the Malta Government. Accordingly, licences have been refused for any further imports of Maltese yarn. The licensing arrangements did not come into operation, however, until 1st February. Since that date a licence was issued in respect of 270,000 lb. weight lying already in the United Kingdom for several weeks, but further licences have been firmly refused.

Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of Lancashire are very much concerned about the position in the textile industry and are most unhappy that the President of the Board of Trade seems to be doing no better than his Tory predecessor? When can we hope to see our own policy implemented?

Mr. Redhead: I can only repeat that in this respect no further licences are being issued.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Why, when it was known that there was power to refuse these illegal shipments, were they not rejected at Liverpool?

Mr. Redhead: They were contrary to the agreement, but they were not illegal. To have insisted on returning the quantities already lying for some weeks in


the United Kingdom would have added very seriously to the already grave difficulties that the Maltese Government are facing in a serious unemployment problem. I think that in the exceptional circumstances the decision which was taken was right, but I add that no further licences are being issued.

Textile Imports

Mr. Mapp: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on a global ceiling for textile imports from 1966 onwards; and what duty he proposes to apply in respect of low-price imports from Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Jay: It is our objective, in discussions with developing countries which export cotton textiles, to agree upon a total limit to our imports from them for 1966 and some years thereafter. I am not prepared to impose any duty on Commonwealth imports which at present enjoy duty free entry.

Mr. Mapp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that textile imports are coming to this country even now at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. of the whole market production? Will he undertake to ensure that the negotiations he has in hand, or will have in hand shortly, will be really tough with our Commonwealth friends and more sophisticated countries? Will he be able to assure at least this side of the House that there will be a substantial instalment of our programme in respect of textiles during the summer months?

Mr. Jay: Yes, my hon. Friend may be assured that we have already embarked on these negotiations and the purpose is to set some agreed limit to textile imports from these countries over the years ahead to give an assurance of stability and security for the British industry. We shall conduct these negotiations in whatever way we think most likely to achieve the result for which my hon. Friend has asked.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of having a hard look at the position as it affects shirts? Will the Government constitute and avail themselves of the advice of a consultative body of people drawn from all sections of the textile industry?

Mr. Jay: We are in close touch with the Cotton Board on the whole issue, and it is getting advice from the management and trade union sides of the industry. We are willing to listen to advice from anyone else well-informed on the industry.

Mr. Heath: As the right hon. Gentleman has told us that these negotiations are now under way, can he give a little more information about whether they are individual bilateral negotiations with all the countries concerned, or are on a global basis with a quota, for example, a separate Commonwealth quota and a quota for the rest of the world? Does he feel confident that these negotiations can be completed by the end of the year which, I think, is the time when the existing arrangements will expire?

Mr. Jay: The negotiations are bilateral, although, as was stated in a public statement made after my recent meeting with the Cotton Board, we seek in future a global quota to give more assurance to the industry. I am hopeful that a conclusion will be reached before the end of the year.

Departmental Staff (Recruitment from Industry)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on recruitment to the Board of Trade from industry.

Mr. Jay: Generally the Board of Trade relies on the normal methods of recruitment through the Civil Service Commission whose competitions provide opportunities for those who have worked in industry to enter the Civil Service. Some technical posts are normally filled by recruitment from industry, and one officer has been specially seconded for a period from an industrial concern to serve as a principal in the Department.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large fund of knowledge and assistance waiting to be employed by the Board of Trade and other Departments? Will he find further opportunities for its use and employment which would be to the benefit of the whole Ministerial Department?

Mr. Jay: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will realise that we have a number of advisory bodies and draw on valuable


advice for the industry, for instance B.O.T.A.C., E.C.G.D., and the British National Export Council, to mention only three. I agree that their advice is very valuable.

Mr. John Hall: Has the attention of the President of the Board of Trade been drawn to the excellent pamphlet, "Change or Decay", which suggests among other things that it would be an advantage to industry and to Ministries if there were an exchange between civil servants and people in industry or even secondment to the Civil Service from industry in order to get experience to deal with each other's problems and provide a valuable force for the Board of Trade and other Ministries?

Mr. Jay: Yes, and I am very sympathetic with that idea.

G.A.T.T. (Part IV)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the de facto implementation of the new Part IV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has affected, and is expected to affect, the United Kingdom's trade with Commonwealth and other developing countries, respectively.

Mr. Jay: It will not be possible for some time to make any such assessment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: To what extent is the United Kingdom's undertaking to give preference to developing countries dependent upon like action to be taken by other developed countries? Will any additional preference be given to developing countries within the Commonwealth?

Mr. Jay: It is wholly so dependent. I am here in agreement with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who made the offer previously at Geneva, that we would be prepared to give similar free access to developing countries outside the Commonwealth if other industrial countries would similarly give free access or preference both to developing countries within the Commonwealth and outside. That offer stands and that is our policy. I think it is beneficial to the Commonwealth and to developing countries as a whole.

Mr. Dell: What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the effect on Commonwealth trade of the recent conditional

acceptance of the new Part IV G.A.T.T. by Australia?

Mr. Jay: I think this is limited to increased trade with Australia by developing countries, but that is only one element in the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. I am sure the President of the Board of Trade wanted to answer the second part of my question, which was whether if such preferences are given to developing countries the Commonwealth developing countries would get additional preference.

Mr. Jay: Yes, certainly the Commonwealth developing countries would gain great advantages from the achievements of non-Commonwealth developed countries. That is what we should like to see.

United States (Motor Car Tariffs)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what answer he has received from the United States Government to his request that all tariffs on motor cars imported into the United States of America should be abolished, in order that the abolition of motor car tariffs bilaterally between the United States of America and Canada should be made consistent with Article 1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Jay: The matter is still under discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that five months is rather a long time for these discussions? Can he assure the House that the Government are not inhibited in pressing these discussions by the fact that they have been in breach of G.A.T.T. themselves for seven months?

Mr. Jay: Five months or seven months may be a long time, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the United States have not yet put these arrangements into effect while the discussions are going on. We are in consultation with the United States Government


and we hope that they will take account of the proposals which we have put to them.

Industrial Development, Fife

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that pending industrial development in Fife will be adequate to provide enought male employment to absorb all those likely to be made redundant in the next few years in the coal mines in Fife; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jay: Industrial developments expected in Fife should provide over 2,700 jobs for men. I shall keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about the future requirements for manpower in the coal mining industry.

Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend made any estimate, or has the Minister of Labour made any estimate, as to the likely loss of jobs in this area in the course of the next few months? Does my right hon. Friend realise that most of the coalmines in the area are scheduled for closure in the next few years and, unless substantial male employment is provided over and above the figure he suggested, there will be redundancy and I fear there will be migration of the younger element from the area?

Mr. Jay: Yes. We realise that this is a major problem for Scotland and we are in constant touch with the National Coal Board to be sure that we are informed well in advance about future releases of labour. So far we are of the opinion that the new jobs in prospect will reasonably balance the redundancies from the coal industry which can now be foreseen.

Travel and Holiday Clubs Ltd. and Fiesta Tours Ltd.

Mr. Loan L. Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the report from the inspector inquiring into the affairs of Travel and Holiday Clubs Limited.

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received the report from the inspector inquiring into the affairs of Fiesta Tours Limited; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the reports of the inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade to investigate the affairs of Fiesta Tours Ltd. and Travel and Holiday Clubs Ltd. When they are received, he will decide whether to publish them.

Mr. Evans: Why is there such a delay in the investigation into the private company named in my Question? Is my hon. Friend aware that there are four young people in my constituency who sent this organisation £50 in February of last year, expecting a holiday? They have had neither holiday nor their money returned. Will my hon. Friend ensure that this investigation takes place as soon as possible so that these people can know where they stand?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. As a matter of fact, the investigation is nearly complete and my right hon. Friend expects to receive the report very shortly.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although it is for his Department to decide whether to publish these reports, the decision must be taken to publish them? This is because many holiday makers are being misled at the moment in the same way as they were by Fiesta and other holiday firms last year. Valuable public information is likely to be contained in these reports. It is imperative that they be published quickly.

Mr. Mason: As I said initially, this is entirely in the discretion of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and no doubt he will have heard what my hon. Friend has just said.

Small Firms (Assistance)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to provide assistance to small firms on the lines of that provided in the United States of America through the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Jay: I am not convinced of the need for this. The services which the Government provide directly or through grant-aided bodies to help industry to improve its performance and efficiency are available to all firms, irrespective of


size. In practice, it is often the smaller firms which are likely to benefit most from them.

Industrial Establishments, Merseyside and Greater London

Mr. Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the proportion of industrial establishments employing over 500 people to total industrial establishments on Merseyside and in Greater London, respectively.

Mr. Jay: In 1958—the latest year for which the information is available—4·1 per cent. of industrial establishments in Merseyside and 2·0 per cent. in Greater London employed 500 persons or more.

Mr. Tilney: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these figures show that, in areas where there are very many large companies but fewer ancillary industries, there is greater employment and there is a relationship that ought to be studied because of these figures?

Mr. Jay: The figures are interesting, though I am not absolutely sure that they show that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is need for more employment in the Merseyside area and our policy is intended to secure that.

Vacant Factories, Merseyside

Mr. Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to buy part of the large factories now vacant on Merseyside and to divide them into smaller units for rent, thus encouraging the expansion of feeder industries for the large industrial establishments operating in the area.

Mr. Jay: The Local Employment Acts already provide the necessary powers. I have inquired into the possibility of reconstructing and modernising the factories to which I believe the hon. Member refers; but I find that the cost would be likely to be disproportionate to the employment provided.

Mr. Tilney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a lack of ancillary industries on Merseyside and, although there may be a large amount of vacant industrial floor space, this space is too costly for small firms, which badly want small factories which are not available?

Mr. Jay: I fully agree that there is a need for employment, though as a matter of fact on Merseyside now, as in most of the under-employed areas, unemployment is lower than it has been for a great many years. If factual information can be advanced which shows that these factories could be used economically, I should be very glad to look at it.

Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend indicate whether the Government have decided to establish publicly-owned industries on Merseyside and whether the factories of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken could be used in this capacity?

Mr. Jay: We are intending to build two new advanced factories on Merseyside, as my hon. Friend knows, for which we are now looking for land. We are exploring the possibility of establishing new Government enterprises also.

Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the conversion of an existing factory would take much less time than the building of a new factory? Although unemployment certainly is less on Merseyside than it has been for many years, it is still almost twice the national average. We want speedy action, although we appreciate all that has been done since last October.

Mr. Jay: That is what one would naturally think a priori, but investigation of these factories by my officers suggests that it might be more economical to build new factories. I remain open-minded on this.

Mr. Barber: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that he was considering the establishment of publicly-owned industries in this area?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir.

Tinplate Manufacture

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress about the siting of a new tinplate mill; and what reply he sent.

Mr. Jay: The Scottish Trades Union Congress expressed the hope that sympathetic consideration would be given to any request by Scottish steel interests for support in beginning tinplate manufacture. Under the present organisation of the industry, it rests with individual companies to make proposals for such a development. I understand that no plans have been submitted to the Iron and Steel Board by any Scottish firm.

Mr. Mackenzie: Should my right hon. Friend receive such representations from the industry for a certain type of development of tinplate and galvanising in this country, may the claims of Scotland, and of Lanarkshire in particular, which has a very special knowledge of the subject, receive very favourable consideration?

Mr. Jay: Yes, certainly, though I think that the main responsibility here would be with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the President of the Board of Trade agree that a new tinplate mill would be a natural development of the highly successful diversification and expansion of Scottish industry which has taken place over the last few years? Would he at least give an assurance that the incentives he would be prepared to offer would be adequate to discount the effect of the reduction in the value of investment allowances approved on Tuesday?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, but, since a new tinplate mill is apt to cost about £100 million or more, we must be satisfied that there is a demand for the tinplate before we embark upon such a scheme.

Estate Agents (Advertisements)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of misleading advertisements put out by estate agents concerning houses for sale; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all such advertisements are accurate descriptions of the properties to be sold.

Mr. Jay: I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether or not advertisements for houses should be brought within the new legislation on trade descriptions which I am preparing.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is probably the most extravagant form of inaccurate advertising in the whole field of consumer goods, and will he consider the desirability of putting into the hands of the local authorities the advertising of houses in their area for sale below a certain price? If this were done, would it not save many people lots of time, lots of money and lots of travelling which they undertake unnecessarily now as a result of false advertising?

Mr. Jay: I should not rule out action such as my hon. Friend suggests. If he will supply to me any evidence of these practices, I shall be very glad to look at it.

Mr. Graham Page: But will not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming? Does he not know that the Minister of Housing and Local Government let slip the other day that he intended to produce legislation to enforce intending vendors to employ local councils as their agents, and is not this a ruse to let local councils discover what is ripe for compulsory purchase?

Mr. Jay: What I am concerned with is legislation to protect the consumer. This deals with consumer goods, and I very much doubt that that question arises.

Rhodesian Tobacco Supplies (Replacement)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made of the dollar cost of replacing Rhodesian supplies of tobacco.

Mr. Redhead: It is estimated that the additional import cost of buying tobacco from dollar sources would be relatively small.

ss. "Californian"

Dr. Bennett: asked the President of the Board of Trade what decision he has reached about the reconsideration of the "Californian" incident.

Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend expects to reach a conclusion shortly.

Dr. Bennett: Is it not true that the "Californian" was probably 30 miles from the "Titanic" and that two other vessels neither of which was the


"Californian", were sighted to the north when Captain Rostron of the "Carpathia" was picking up survivors, which makes it highly improbable that the "Californian" was the villain of the piece, as history has now seemed to grasp? Will the hon. Gentleman do something to try belatedly to clear Captain Lord's name?

Mr. Mason: One of the reasons why the inquiry is taking so long is that there is conflicting evidence on this point, and the navigational aspects of the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are receiving particular examination.

Mr. Ogden: Will my hon. Friend take it that the petitioners in this case are by no means dismayed at the amount of time being taken and they regard it as an indication that the question is being given every consideration? All we hope is that, when a decision is made, it will be the decision for which many hon. Members on both sides are hoping, namely, that my right hon. Friend will be able to make arrangements for a public inquiry to clear the captain's name.

Land, Rutherglen (Development)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the use to be made of land occupied by Associated Chemical Company Limited at Ruther-glen, and on the effect it has on employment in this development district.

Mr. Jay: I understand work has started on the part of the property being developed for industrial purposes by Taylor Woodrow Industrial Estates Ltd. I hope that this welcome development will provide some useful employment in the area.

Mr. Mackenzie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he yet aware of any decision to use the remainder of this valuable site?

Mr. Jay: I could not say so at this moment, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential to use the site and provide more employment in the area.

Heavy Electrical Plant (Production)

Mr. Palmer: asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he will make a statement on the concentration of production of electric turbo-generators in

order to achieve greater standardisation of design and improved efficiency of manufacture; and what proposals he has for the further rationalisation of heavy electrical plant production.

Mr. Jay: My Department is in close touch with the firms concerned and with the Central Electricity Generating Board on these matters. I naturally welcome any steps which will lead to improved efficiency in manufacture.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been a constant criticism by the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is in a good position to know, of the electrical manufacturers of this country that they will not rationalise their production of heavy electrical plant, and will he take steps to see that they do so?

Mr. Jay: As my hon. Friend knows, proposals in that sense are now coming forward. I agree with him that there is a strong case for further rationalisation in this industry.

Mr. Peter Emery: Has the President of the Board of Trade any evidence that these firms will not rationalise? Are they not, in contact with him, quite willing to take these steps if they can be properly arranged?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir; I think that consultations between the C.E.G.B. and the firms are now bearing fruit.

Whithorn, Wigtownshire (Advance Factory)

Mr. Brewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now authorise an advance factory to be built at Whithorn in Wigtownshire.

Mr. Jay: Whithorn's total population of about 1,000 does not seem likely of itself to justify an advance factory, but the claims of the Newton Stewart development district, of which it forms part, will be borne in mind, with those of other development districts, when future programmes are considered.

Mr. Brewis: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the very high rate of unemployment in this town, that there is a town development plan going forward, and that it would help the town


greatly if an advance factory were set up? Second, will he look again at the possibility of publishing the South-West of Scotland Plan?

Mr. Jay: I agree that there is a problem in this area, and we shall certainly take it into account when future advance factory programmes are worked out.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue to seek to pursue an independent foreign policy in any future negotiations between the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): In terms of practical realities, this Question is for the time being hypothetical. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to suggestions that the foreign policy of this country should be decided by any regional supra-national organisation, or by a system of majority voting, then not only Her Majesty's Government but, I am convinced, the British people would insist that the foreign policy of this country must be decided by the Government of the day, under the control of Parliament, and, of course, within the limitations provided by our commitments to the United Nations, the Commonwealth and to any alliances into which we have freely entered.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Prime Minister agree that the pursuance of an independent foreign policy, just like the pursuance of an independent economic policy, is incompatible with the objects of the European Economic Community and that, therefore, what he has just said means that, if opportunity were to arise for us to join the Community, we should not be in a position to accept it?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were correct, of course, that would mean that the previous negotiations with the European Economic Community would have involved denying the possibility of pursuing an independent foreign policy. But right hon. Gentlemen opposite concerned in those negotiations said flatly that they were not prepared to accept that, and I agreed with their interpretation of the situation.

Mr. Shinwell: Has my right hon. Friend observed that General de Gaulle manages to pursue an independent foreign policy within the context of the Six?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I had noticed that that was the position.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that neither General de Gaulle nor the previous Conservative Administration is necessarily the best example to follow? If the movement towards political unity in Europe progresses, is it not inevitable that there must in time be a pooling of sovereignty and a coming together on foreign and defence policy?

The Prime Minister: I fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, though, after recent events, I am not altogether happy to accept that the Liberal Party is a very good guide either. But if the suggestion is—some of our friends, friends of all of us, in Europe put it forward—that ultimately we should move towards an idea under which decisions on foreign policy and defence are taken by some system of majority voting in Brussels, then, I believe—I may be wrong—that this would not be wished by the British people and the vast majority of the British people would be opposed to it.

Mr. Bellenger: I recognise that the situation is somewhat hypothetical at present, but does not my right hon. Friend realise that, in a very short time, majority voting will be the order of the day in the E.E.C., and will he, therefore, assure the House that, in spite of some of the limiting factors which he suffers from outside this House in another organisation, he will take an initiative to put Britain's point of view and application for admission to the E.E.C., if necessary, on the terms of the Treaty of Rome?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which says anything about majority voting on foreign affairs. The problem has been, as right hon. Members opposite many times confirmed, that there are many people in Europe who feel that, if one signs the Treaty of Rome, one is automatically committed to this kind of development. However, this is not a view which either Front Bench has accepted. It is the fact


that we in this country, despite our very close links with Europe, which we want to improve, are also members of the Commonwealth and through history, geography and all our associations must have a window on the world in foreign policy. I think it inconceivable that the House or the country would accept a situation in which, for example, a Commonwealth matter, in Malaysia, or any initiative we might want to take on Vietnam, would be decided on by a system of majority voting within any purely European organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — URANIUM AND OTHER FISSILE MATERIALS

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister what is the total value of natural and processed uranium and other fissile metals or materials, other than those irrevocably committed either to nuclear weapons or the reactors of nuclear power stations in operation or building, held in Government, Atomic Energy Authority or private stocks in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: It would not be in the public interest for me to give the information asked for in the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that his reply will disappoint those who feel that the question of national security was adequately safeguarded by the careful framing of this Question? But, perhaps more important, does not he agree that the size of the stock of materials is very substantial and that there is scope for a considerable and constructive British initiative in monetising these materials, thereby achieving at one and the same time an increase of national security and an increase in international liquidity?

The Prime Minister: If I thought that uranium could be added to gold in terms of international liquidity reserves, I should be very happy. I noticed the wording of the hon. Gentleman's Question, and I would ask him to take it from me that I was not in any sense standing on any plea of military security or political security. But it has long been the practice in matters affecting the trading interest of the Atomic Energy Authority and of the country as a whole

that these figures be not given. If the hon. Gentleman will study successive Reports of the Public Accounts Committee he will find that it has done a very careful survey of these matters, but I remember that we always decided that we would never publish the figures because it affects the trading freedom of the A.E.A., and it might have very adverse effects on our balance of payments if we published these figures regularly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister what tests of nuclear warheads or their trigger mechanisms have been carried out by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Government since 15th October, 1964.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: The Prime Minister will be aware that he has given an undertaking that whatever is necessary for our collective deterrent will be done. I take it that he was referring to, among other things, testing. Since we do not have a collective deterrent, and, on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, do not seem to be likely to get one for some time, will he give an assurance that in the meantime whatever tests are necessary for our own British nuclear armament will be carried out?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear a number of times that we intend to internationalise in the way that I have described. If we want to do that, the deterrent must be kept up to date. I have made clear that we shall do whatever is necessary to make it effective in readiness for internationalisation.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the Prime Minister mean that these mechanisms can be tested if necessary? He will recall that in a debate some months ago he said that these mechanisms could not be tested under the test ban agreement. I am sure that this is not so, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not so and that any tests which are necessary can be made by the British Government?

The Prime Minister: Mechanisms can be tested. What cannot be tested is the


bomb as a whole. In the debate, I referred to the fact that the bomb as a whole has not been tested. We will have to consider—and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of this; he knows what I am talking about—whether the disastrous flop which his Government undertook at very great—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the disastrous test that his Government undertook at a very high cost to the British taxpayer with no results should be repeated.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am content that the right hon. Gentleman has now reversed what he said in the debate some months ago.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be content. I have reversed nothing that I said in the debate. What we intend to do is to reverse the disastrous and expensive policy of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is nothing in the Labour Party's election manifesto about internationalising the British nuclear weapon to which he has just referred? Does he mean by internationalising it the retention of the nuclear weapon by this country and its testing in this country? If so, is he aware that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who will not be at all happy with his reply?

The Prime Minister: However that may be, we made clear time and again, as I did from the Dispatch Box opposite and on many occasions, that our proposal was not to destroy any deterrent capacity within our hands, but we were not going to take any measures for the purpose of getting new and costly delivery vehicles such as Blue Streak or anything of that kind. We also said that what deterrent was in our hands would become collectivised through the Alliance. That is our policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether it was with his authority that Mr. Gordon Walker made a public declaration at New Delhi on Monday 3rd May that United States bombing in Vietnam was justified.

The Prime Minister: There was no question of specific authority for this Press Conference and the reports I have seen of Mr. Gordon Walker's remarks in Delhi suggest that these were in general accord with the position of Her Majesty's Government as described by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, during the Foreign Affairs debate on 1st April and, later, in his statement on Vietnam on 3rd June.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Mr. Gordon Walker said that the air bombing was useful and then corrected that to say that it was necessary? In view of the sheer barbarity of these operations, of their futility and of the fact that the whole attempt to compel the Hanoi Government to come to the conference table by air bombing North Vietnam is contrary to the Charter as well as a failure, would he not urge that the United States should abandon this practice as a preliminary in order to make negotiations possible?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the diagnosis and analysis of my hon. Friend. If he wishes me to do so, I will draw his remarks to the attention of Mr. Gordon Walker. I would simply say this on what he has said. As I understand it, the bombing of North Vietnam is not related to any attempt to try to persuade or force Hanoi to come to the conference table. If it were, it might be in danger of being counter-productive rather than productive. It is directly related to the supply routes of the Vietcong in South Vietnam. But, on the general question of Vietnam policy and what might be done in future, I cannot add anything to what I said in answer to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) two days ago.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would not the Prime Minister agree that both this Government and the United States Government—not to speak of the Indian Government and many others—have sought by every means available to them to bring the Communist Powers to the conference table and that time and again they have refused?

The Prime Minister: That has certainly been our objective, and we have worked very hard for this purpose over the past


few months. So far we have not been successful. But I would say to the hon. Gentleman that in anything as vital as this—and recent events even since we last considered Vietnam two days ago have underlined the growing gravity of the situation—we must all accept as our line on this that we never take "No" for an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS (MINISTERS' SPEECHES)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what instructions are given to Ministers as to whether they may refer to party political matters when making speeches at official functions.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that it has been one of the traditions of the past that Ministers differentiated between the kind of speeches which they made when they were political or semi-political occasions and those which they made at official openings? Is he further aware that recently a Minister, in speaking at the opening of a training centre, criticised and castigated the Opposition and said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to indicate to what Minister he is referring.

Mr. Lewis: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Then that part of the supplementary question is out of order.

Mr. Lewis: May I go on to ask the Prime Minister whether in the general instructions which he gives to Ministers he will bear in mind that it is necessary that they should realise the distinction between official openings and political occasions?

The Prime Minister: I think that all Ministers in this Government—and in previous Governments—recognise this. However, there have been from time to time—and I do not accept the case which the hon. Gentleman had in mind as a case in point—cases of Ministers in all Governments who have made speeches which are inevitably controversial. It does

not mean that they are necessarily political. Any Minister of any Government would be almost totally gagged if he were told that all his speeches must be non-controversial. I remember seeing on television the former Postmaster-General opening a big new Post Office development and describing it to 10 million viewers as a great triumph of private enterprise.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to a recommendation made at the 14th Pugwash Conference on science and world affairs, a copy of which has been sent to him, that an international year for the preparation of disarmament should be organised; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are still studying the recommendation made at the fourteenth Pugwash Conference that an International Year for the Preparation of Disarmament be proclaimed by the United Nations.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As today he is attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, will he, in addition to considering the situation in Vietnam, seek support for this idea at the conference and support for the idea suggested at the United Nations Disarmament Commission that there should be a world disarmament conference? Does he realise that at today's conference a quarter of the world's population is represented and that such a call would be greeted by people throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: I have said that we are studying the recommendation. Frankly, all our efforts in this matter at the moment are being put into trying to get the Disarmament Conference at Geneva to reconvene. I think that that is the place where we may hope for progress and we shall have ideas to put before it in terms of the sheer urgency for disarmament. That is the thing we shall be concentrating on. I hope that it will be possible for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to discuss the matter. I shall be surprised if we do not under the general heading of world affairs which we shall be debating.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend understand that this proposal is a recognition by the eminent scientists who run the Pugwash movement that the general public and many people in responsible positions do not adequately understand the great dangers of the arms race and of accidental war? Will he consider putting this plan forward to the United Nations General Assembly when he attends it?

The Prime Minister: The consideration mentioned by my right hon. Friend which led to this initiative by the Pugwash scientists is very much in our minds in considering this question. I agree with him that there is not enough realisation in any country of the paramount need for disarmament but I think that he, at any rate, can feel that, if anyone is responsible for that, it is not he himself in view of the work he has done for disarmament during a lifetime of public service.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when the 18-Nation Disarmament Conference at Geneva is likely to be reconvened, since nothing of any practical value concerning arms control and disarmament has come out of the United Nations Commission which has been sitting in New York?

The Prime Minister: I have been scrutinising the reports of the Commission to see if I could give a favourable answer to the right hon. Gentleman's Question. As he will be aware, there were discussions yesterday and an initiative taken in favour of a return to Geneva. I think that I am right in saying that the Soviet delegation abstained but we have hopes that it can be persuaded to return to Geneva.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—that it is at the more intimate Geneva level that we can hope to make progress and not at a world forum. But perhaps the talks have done something to stir up interest in this question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 21ST JUNE, and TUESDAY, 22ND JUNE—Committee stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which it is hoped to complete On WEDNESDAY, 23RD JUNE.

THURSDAY, 24TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Monopolies and Mergers Bill.

Motion on the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order.

FRIDAY, 25TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill.

MONDAY, 28TH JUNE—The proposed business will be: Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Committee.

A debate will take place on a subject to be announced later.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I return to the subject that I have raised on a number of occasions lately, that is, the question of a debate on foreign affairs, including Vietnam, at an early date? Would it assist the Leader of the House if I were to say that we would be willing to use one of our Supply days joined to a day given by the Government so that the House could have a two-day major debate on foreign affairs? If that is acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman, when might the debate be held?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir, it does assist if the Opposition are prepared to provide one day so that the House could hold a two-day debate. We had better talk about the date through the usual channels, because, as the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to Questions two days ago that he hopes very soon to make a statement. Perhaps it would be advisable to await that statement and then we can have talks through the usual channels about the date of a debate.

Mr. Orme: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, shortly before the


Whitsun Recess, he promised an early debate on foreign affairs? A week has gone by since the Recess and next week's business still does not contain the promise of a debate. There is a great deal of urgency in this matter. Will he reconsider the possibility of such a debate next week?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot promise it next week. I am prepared to talk through the usual channels about the date, but I believe that we should await the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, before Whit-sun, he said that the White Paper on the Government's land policy would be available after Whitsun. Can he now give a more precise indication of the date?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. But it will still be after Whitsun.

Mr. Wilkins: Has my right hon. Friend noted, in considering next week's business, the insatiable appetite of the Opposition to debate at inordinate length every Clause of the Finance Bill? Will not he try to accommodate them a little by offering Monday and Wednesday mornings for this purpose?

Mr. Bowden: The Bill is, of course, long. In addition to the time already taken, we are providing three days next week, which means 15 days in all for the Committee stage. That should be adequate. We had a morning sitting today. If we run true to form, we shall have morning sittings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday next week.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary, when moving to report Progress early today after the sitting had lasted 19½ hours, thanked the Opposition, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for their full co-operation throughout the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and, on previous occasions, has congratulated hon. Members on the brevity of their speeches?
Will the Leader of the House therefore firmly repudiate the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins)? Does not he also acknowledge the tremendous burden that he is putting on the Committee, when it begins further consideration of the Bill

next week, in view of the fact that we have reached Clause 72 and that we must reach Clause 90 and deal also with the remaining Schedules and with the new Clauses? This is a very considerable burden to ask the Committee to undertake next week.

Mr. Bowden: I think that three days will be enough. Of course, we do not yet know what new Clauses will be selected. We shall have taken 15 days in all by Wednesday next week. This should provide sufficient time. If further time is necessary we would have to consider it.
What is important is to recognise that, in addition to the Government, the Opposition have a duty to oppose, to put their point of view. I have had experience in opposition to Finance Bills over many years and it has usually been possible, through exchanges between both Front Benches, to see a Finance Bill is carried through adequately and correctly with a proper amount of time.

Mr. Michael Foot: Reverting to the question of a debate on foreign affairs, will my right hon. Friend consider that, if it is possible for the Prime Minister to make a statement on Vietnam in the next few days, at the beginning of next week possibly, that might make it all the more necessary that we should have a debate? Will not he consider very seriously whether he could not alter the business for next Thursday so as to have a debate on foreign affairs so that the House of Commons may be able to say what it thinks on the most important question now before the nation?

Mr. Bowden: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view, but there is an argument on the other side of the coin. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to make a statement means that it would be inadvisable to have an immediate debate. We had better await the statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider something that is not a matter of controversy between the two sides? It is that, at long last, we should have a debate on our procedure. We are being discourteous to the Select Committee on Procedure, which made a report some weeks ago and which we


have not had the opportunity to consider. There is already disquiet on both sides of the House about the way in which Question Time is organised. I am told, for example, that it is now almost impossible to put a Question to the Prime Minister with a chance of an oral reply before August. I am not blaming either side, but this is a House of Commons matter which we should get down to.
There is also the question of the chaos which, I understand, was caused this morning as far as the Standing Committees were concerned.
There is also the Motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), which is a matter of very great importance.

[That this House, recognising the normal duty of the Chair to give a casting vote when the voices are equal, declares that proposals for taxation of the people cannot he initiated by this means without infringing the constitutional rights of the Commons, and that the proceedings on postponed Clause 42 of the Finance Bill on 2nd June, 1965, are null and void.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman not say that it is the wish of both sides that we should have an early debate on procedure?

Mr. Bowden: I have clearly stated on a number of occasions that we shall have a debate on the two Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure. We shall have that debate before we rise at the end of July, and I hope that the House will take some action. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should think that we are treating the House discourteously. He may recall that the last Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, presented when he was Leader of the House under the last Administration, has still not been debated, although contained within that Report was what I might modestly describe as a good idea for timetabling Bills, which might have been helpful with the Finance Bill.

Mr. William Hamilton: Despite that last answer, may I add my support to what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has said, but amend it and suggest again that we should debate this Report during a

morning sitting? This would satisfy both sides of the House. We would have the debate, and it would not interfere with the Government's legislative programme.
On the matter of the legislative programme, may I ask whether, as there are a limited number of days available to the Government between now and the end of July for legislative purposes, my right hon. Friend will seriously consider sitting into August, in view of the fact that the August Bank Holiday is now at the end of the month instead of at the beginning?

Mr. Bowden: I have already said so many times that we are to have a debate on procedure. It will be in Government time. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that if he requires a special morning sitting to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, that in itself requires a Motion of the House, which will take up further time of the House.

Sir K. Pickthorn: While I am sure that the House would be grateful, as I would, for any advice from the Select Committee on Procedure, or for any advice which might emerge from a debate on its Report, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, on the subject of my Motion about casting votes and their relation to taxation—though this is a matter for the whole House if ever a matter was one—he appreciates that it is the Government who have the advantage of any doubtfulness that there can be about this subject? The matter cannot be fully dealt with on a procedural basis, because the essence of it is that that procedure is a necessarily adjective matter, and a constitutional matter which transcends the competence of all Committees on Procedure.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded us a little while ago that the Opposition also had some duties in these matters. Will he remember that he has two duties in this matter, and that getting Government business through is not the higher of the two? Will he consider the rights of the rest of the House to have such a doubt set at rest the moment it is raised?

Mr. Bowden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in advising me that he would raise this matter. I have looked at the precedents, and I think


that he will agree that as far as Erskine May is concerned there is no doubt that the advice given to the Chairman at the time was in accordance with precedent.
This may not be the view of the House at the moment—that is not for me to say—but I do not think that a debate on this matter would get us very much further. On the other hand, if it was the general view of the House, as expressed through the usual channels, that the matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure for its advice, I would be happy to do just that.

Mr. Zilliacus: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the nature of the Prime Minister's promised statement, a foreign affairs debate is highly important and very urgent and much wanted in the country? If it was a good thing for the Foreign Secretary to attend Oxford for a "teach-in" there, surely there is a case for having a two-day "teach-in" in the House of Commons?

Mr. Bowden: I agree about the importance of a foreign affairs debate, but I still think that we should await the statement by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Deedes: Is it proposed to suspend the rule for Friday's business?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. That is not normal on a Friday.

Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the last time I asked him about the Summer Recess he told me that first he wanted to fix the Easter Recess. Since then he has in fact fixed the Easter Recess twice, and the Whitsun Recess has also come and gone. In view of the fact that many hon. Members wish to make holiday arrangements with their families, can he give us some indication of the dates of the Summer Recess?

Mr. Bowden: It is not usual, towards the end of June, or even early in July, to announce the actual dates for the Summer Recess. To be frank, I had hoped that we might get up at the end of July, probably on the 30th, but, if it is necessary to run into the early part of August, the fact that there is no Bank Holiday Monday then will make it easier to do so.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night's proceedings in the Chamber prevented the Scottish

Standing Committee from meeting this morning and discussing matters to do with births and deaths, which are most anxiously awaited by people in Scotland? Will he give an undertaking that the same sort of thing will not happen on the next occasion when the Committee is due to meet?

Mr. Bowden: I understand that there were certain difficulties about the staffing and manning of Standing Committees this morning. I hope that the House will exonerate the staff in this respect. The situation arose because of an unusually long sitting, and we shall see what can be done to obviate it in future.

Mr. Woodburn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when there is a scarcity of labour the solution is normally to use machinery? If there is a shortage of reporters, is it not justifiable to use tape recorders and not have a Committee ceasing to function because of the absence of reporters?
May I further ask whether, in regard to the whole matter being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure, he would agree that the House itself should modernise its procedure and not have stupid all-night sittings at which nobody can do his work properly?

Mr. Bowden: I should have thought that the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure were wide enough to enable it to consider proposals for timetabling, which were dropped at the end of the last Session.

Mr. Lubbock: Even though the right hon. Gentleman cannot say whether we shall rise at the end of July, can he say how many days have so far been preempted for the Report and Third Reading stages of the Finance Bill and the other debates which he has promised, such as the one on the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure?
With further reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recalls that last week he said that he would be willing to have Wednesday morning sittings, provided that a majority of the House was in favour of them? Is he now modifying that by saying that there must be a Resolution of the House, debated on the Floor of the House, to enable that to be done? Would he accept


the Motion on the Order Paper signed by two-thirds of the Members of the House who are not members of the Government?

[That this House, noting the desire of Her Majesty's Opposition to give detailed examination of all measures introduced by Her Majesty's Government, is of the opinion that the present hours of sitting imposes an onerous burden upon Her Majesty's Opposition in that such detailed examination often involves sittings late into the night, and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce immediately sittings to commence at 10.30 a.m. on each sitting day.]

Mr. Bowden: I think that it should be made clear that if the House desires morning sittings I shall not stand in the way of the House, but it needs a decision of the House, which means a Motion carried by the House, if it gets on the Order Paper. If it is the view of the House that we should have morning sittings, as we have had this morning, we can continue to have them on the Finance Bill. If that is the general view of the House, let us look at it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware that no one on either side of the House feels that the staff, who serve us magnificently, require exoneration, but many doubt whether the same dispensation can be given to the Government's handling of business?

Mr. Bowden: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that all the staff ought to be exonerated from any blame for what happened. I cannot accept that it was the Government's action which led to the situation which arose this morning. I would rather regard it as due to a lack of organisation and leadnership on the Opposition Front Bench.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we must get on.

FERRANTI LTD.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
On 28th July, 1964, my predecessor informed the House that Ferranti Ltd. was prepared to refund to the Government a total of £4¼ million of the profit on its production contracts in respect of the Bloodhound Mark I missile and that discussions would take place with regard to the discharge of this liability.
Agreement has now been reached on the method and timing of the refund and Ferranti Ltd. has today entered into a formal undertaking. Tax has already been paid on this sum and will be retained by the Government. The agreement is designed to achieve repayment of the balance of approximately £2 million by September, 1969, in five annual instalments, with a proviso that no annual instalment shall exceed one-third of the consolidated net profits of the company during the preceding year.
In the event of any arrears arising from this limitation these will attract interest and will be added to the sum due in the next year.

Mr. Maude: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be satisfaction that the arrangement made with the previous Government has now been worked out in detail?

Mr. Jenkins: The previous Government left us a good number of details to work out.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will not be satisfaction with this arrangement, and that it is intolerable to give such latitude to this firm, which has treated our country in such a way? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that a week ago this firm added insult to injury by what it said before a very important gathering?

Mr. Jenkins: I took note of what Mr. de Ferranti said last week, but having had a good number of dealings with him over the preceding weeks and months I was not disposed to take it—or, indeed, anything that Mr. de Ferranti says—too seriously. But I have no doubt that this firm is of great technical value to the


economy, and I had to bear this in mind, together with the position at which we had arrived as a result of this unfortunate incident. In all the circumstances, bearing in mind, too, that until today there was no legal obligation on Ferranti Ltd., I think that this is a fair arrangement.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the firm will be paying at the current rates of interest on the money to the end of the repayment, and can he assure the House that he tried—and presumably failed—to obtain repayment over a shorter period than four years? Can he give an assurance that Ferranti was given to understand very definitely, either by this Government or by the last, that if this sort of thing occurred again something serious would be done with the firm?

Mr. Jenkins: Interest on arrears will be at 1 per cent. above Bank Rate, or 5 per cent., whichever is the higher. As for the position that I was left to deal with, Ferranti understood—I think quite falsely—that as a result of its discussions with the previous Government it was to be allowed to repay over 10 years with tax instalments accounting for the first five of these instalments. I think that it was wrong in believing that. But the present arrangement is a great improvement on that, and I hope that as a result of what has happened Ferranti and everybody will be determined to see that no repetition of this sort of incident occurs.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that in this agreement that he has arrived at with Ferranti there is no provision for speeding up repayments, whatever the firm's net profits might happen to be over this five-years period? Is it not rather anomalous that he should have agreed that the firm should not pay more than one-third of its consolidated net profits in any of these five years, when there is no corresponding minimum proportion of net profits which must be exceeded in any one repayment year?
Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is infinitely more important for the Government to refine the methods of contract negotiation so that this kind of mistake is not repeated? Is he satisfied that everything possible

has been done, in the light of the two reports he received from Sir John Lang, to prevent a repetition of this sort of mistake?

Mr. Jenkins: I agree that the second question that the hon. Member referred to is the more important aspect of the matter. I have already given the House some indication of what we are doing to carry out the recommendation of Sir John Lang. We are considering further measures, and we shall do everything possible—there can be no absolute certainty in these matters—to ensure that there is no approach to a repetition of this kind of thing.
On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I had to consider what, in the absence of any direct legal obligation, was the best arrangement at which I could arrive, and I believe this to be it.

Mr. Shinwell: Although the arrangement appears to be somewhat generous, is it not likely that if Labour had not won the last election we might have had no refund at all?

Mr. Jenkins: It is certainly the case that although, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said, I only filled in the details, the details required a great deal of filling in and a great deal of extremely difficult negotiation.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? First, on the question of the interest on these repayments, when he mentioned arrears I presume that he meant future arrears arising from year to year under the five-year agreement. It was not clear from his supplementary answer. Secondly, what is the position if, at the end of five years, due to the fact that profits have not reached the necessary minimum point, there are still arrears left over with the interest due on them—which is possible?

Mr. Jenkins: The interest applies to arrears under the terms of the agreement that I have announced. If there are arrears at the end of five years they will be treated in the same way as arrears at the end of any one year within the five years.

BILL PRESENTED GAS (BORROWING POWERS)

Bill to increase the amount which may be borrowed by the Gas Council and Area Boards under the Gas Act, 1948; presented by Mr. Frederick Lee; supported by Mr. Niall MacDermot and Mr. John Morris; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), on Tuesday next this House do meet at a quarter to Eleven o'clock, that after Prayers, Mr. Speaker do suspend the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, and that at that hour the House do proceed with Business as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), as if the House had met at that hour.—[Mr. Bowden.]

3.58 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I oppose the Motion for reasons which I regard as valid. First, owing to the late sitting of the House not all our Parliamentary papers have reached us. As a result I was debarred from drawing attention to the fact that last night I submitted a notice of Motion dealing with this matter, which has been supported by Members of all parties represented in the House. During the course of our inquiries and questions on the matter of the proposed sittings of the House there have been different descriptions of what our purpose is. Upstairs in the Committee corridor, some weeks ago, there was a pictorial representation purporting to illustrate the 700 years covering the development of Parliament. It was described as "700 years of Great Britain's Parliament".
We are all aware that there is another commemoration to which we have been invited, where we are asked to celebrate 700 years of Parliament. There is no indication as to which Parliament we shall be paying tribute. Next, my right hon. Friend yesterday drew attention to the fact that one purpose of these celebrations was to record the first English Parliament, summoned by Henry III. This shows that the designation of this occasion is at least somewhat fluid. I feel it necessary to suggest to my right hon. Friend, therefore, that it would be appropriate for him to consider doing what is suggested in the Notice of Motion, which should have been in our Parliamentary papers—that if we can pay tribute to Simon de Montfort's English Parliament then we ought also to be able to pay tribute to 600 years of Scotland's Parliamentary traditions. That is the purpose of our notice of Motion, which is not available to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will take note of the fact


that what I am saying is supported on the benches opposite by Liberal and Conservative Members and also on these benches, by my Labour colleagues. If my right hon. Friend will accept this suggestion, then all of us together next week will have the privilege and honour of paying our tribute to what has been done in Parliamentary development not only in England, but also in Scotland and of wishing the Parliamentary tradition continued success in the years which lie ahead.

4.0 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Perhaps I can help the House by making it absolutely clear that the celebration on Tuesday of next week is the 700th anniversary of the occasion on 20th January, 1265, of Simon de Montfort's Parliament, when, for the first time, representatives of the communities attended the Parliament here—that is, the burgesses from the boroughs and the knights from the shires. The occasion when the Scots first came here as Members of Parliament—although they had attended earlier Parliaments as representatives—was the year after the Act of Union in 1707.
This has been made absolutely clear in these celebrations. I ask my hon. Friend to realise that on this occasion this is not only an English celebration. This is a celebration of Parliamentary democracy, which is being joined by Commonwealth Parliaments, because it is the basis of their own democracy and their own form of Parliament. This was the occasion on which, for the first time, representatives of the boroughs and knights from the shires came together in Parliament. That is what we are celebrating, and not the occasion on which the Scots, or the Welsh, first joined us.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the Leader of the House aware that for a celebration to be successful—and this is why we have criticised the wording—it needs to take into account the pride and susceptibilities of the whole of the people of the countries of Great Britain? Is he aware that in Scotland there has been a great deal of resentment aroused by the bland assumption in some of the language used that this

was the 700th anniversary of this Parliament, whereas, in fact, it is a legal decision that the Parliaments of England and Scotland were terminated in 1707 and thereafter fused into the Parliament of Great Britain.
Would he, in future, take note of this undoubted fact, and then he will enable the whole of us in the House to join in celebrating what is undoubtedly a great occasion in the history of Parliamentary government?

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I appreciated every word that the Leader of the House said. We accept that Simon de Montfort's Parliament has made an historic mark in the whole history of democracy in the world, but I feel that what has concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House—not just this once—is what appears to be the complete disregard by the Government of the true feelings and true interests of Scotland. It is about time that some mention was made of this.
In explanation, I would make one small point. We saw an obvious example of this when, recently, a recommendation was made by one of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends that schoolchildren in Scotland should be given a day's holiday to mark the anniversary of Magna Charta. In response, we have had the most amazing snub that I have ever known given to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because most of the authorities, dealing with a large number of school children and including the major city, Glasgow, have decided not to have this holiday.
When things reach this stage it is becoming quite clear that the Government are getting out of touch with Scottish feeling and Scottish interests. This was a situation to which we were not accustomed under the previous Administration. In those circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give careful consideration to the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) which I have been proud to sign.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have great sympathy with what has been said on behalf of Scotland and I do not wish to derogate from it in any


way, but, as we are having this short discussion, may I put it on record that the oldest Parliament in Great Britain is the Shetlandic Ting. If this is to be a general celebration of Parliament, then Shetland is the father or mother of Parliament in this country and she and her long Nordic tradition, with which I couple Orkney, should be associated with this celebration.
From time to time we are rather suspicious of the Scots. We hear that they are oppressed by the English, but they have done a bit of oppressing themselves in their time.

4.6 p.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to remember that although we have been discussing our internal matters in the British Isles, this celebration is being welcomed and supported warmly in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States, who feel that they are a part of this celebration and who are delighted to be represented. We ought to realise that they have an interest in this matter and that it is a wider interest than that of the House of Commons. I hope that the celebration will have every success.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), on Tuesday next this House do meet at a quarter to Eleven o'clock, that after Prayers, Mr. Speaker do suspend the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, and that at that hour the House do proceed with Business as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), as if the House had met at that hour.

Orders of the Day — HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (CHANGED FROM HIGH- LAND DEVELOPMENT (SCOT- LAND) BILL)

As amended (in Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH- LANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT BOARD.)

4.7 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, after "of" to insert
assisting the people of the Highlands and Islands to improve their economic and social conditions and of".
This Amendment is intended to meet the generally expressed wish of the Committee during our proceedings that there should be a reference in the Bill to the fact that the Bill itself was "designed to help people"—in the words of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who moved an Amendment to that effect. I promised to see whether we could find words which would be acceptable and which could be put into the Bill. This we have done, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "six" and to insert "four".
We make no apology for coming back to this Amendment. I feel that it is most important that the Highland Development Board be of as high a quality as possible, and I reject the reasoning of the Minister of State, as reported in column 817 of the Committee, when he said that we cannot have fewer than three people on this Board,
but at least we have the advantage of having more".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 19th May, 1965; c. 817.]
This is bad reasoning. Having got the instruments, I am certain that what we need is first-class people on the Board.


It is no good laying down excellent plans and having excellent ambitions unless we have the people to carry them out.
I should have liked to see a Board constituted exactly on the lines of the Tennessee Valley Authority, a three-man board, whose achievements I need not enumerate. It has been an example to the world of a mixture of private and public enterprise. With that practical example in front of us, there is little doubt that we should go for the highest possible quality of person on the Board to be found in this country or the Commonwealth, particularly for the chairmanship.
I am afraid that this may come down very largely to a question of money. But the fewer there are to pay, then the higher the pay we can give them. I make no apology for saying that in that event the higher is likely to be the quality. I would say, bluntly and rather vulgarly, that the chairman requires to have more than £10,000 a year, and at least two other high quality people need to have more than £7,000. This is the sort of salary given in medium-class and big industry, and I am certain that on the Board we must have men of at least that quality. I move the Amendment because of the great importance of having first-class people for this instrument, which, we hope, will be a good one.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I oppose the Amendment. We had a very full discussion of this subject in the Standing Committee. The Liberal representative on the Standing Committee handled his contribution very confidently, but I do not think that during the discussions he very strongly objected to the six as such or particularly wanted a reduction. I am not sure whether I am doing him an injustice, but my impression was that there was no particular feeling anywhere in the Committee that we should drastically reduce the number.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sure that the hon. Member does not intend to misrepresent me, but I moved an Amendment, in terms similar to the Amendment now before us, to reduce the number.

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Gentleman did not appear to me to pursue it with very great passion. At all events, the

Committee eventually did not appear to regard a reduction from six to five or four as a very fundamental matter. I am sure that I speak for all on our side when I say that it did not arouse much feeling among us, and I do not think that the Conservative Opposition had any strong views about the number.
The real question was that of full-time membership and the quality and capacity of those appointed. I put it to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) that the Highlands is not a small area. The Tennessee Valley is not a small area either, but his analogy fails in a number of respects which he threw out as illustrations rather than evidence. The T.V.A. situation is not by any means comparable with the Highland situation. I used to think so, but then I studied the T.V.A. and found that it was a different story.
In its first year the T.V.A. was given a sum which we would dearly like given to the Highlands—between £60 and £70 million. We have not asked for quite as much as that in any one year for the Highlands. The scope of the T.V.A.—

4.15 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: The Tennessee Valley basin is enormously bigger than the whole Highlands area.

Mr. MacMillan: That is so, but in the Highlands and Islands region there is no such thing as a Highlands problem. There is a great variety of problems calling for a diversity of people on a Board of this kind, people with many skills and a variety of capacities. I believe that six is not too large a number. I point out that in another Amendment the Liberal Party proposes a consultative committee of 70, which would give about ten advisers to every member of the Board.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member is being very misleading and is advancing an extremely irrelevant argument. He knows that there is a world of difference between a small executive board which is directing a business and an organisation with a big representative element. The two things are not linked as he is linking them.

Mr. MacMillan: I agree, but I am not comparing the consultative committee and the Board. However, if the Liberal


Amendment were carried, and the consultative committee had a membership of 70 and the Board a membership of five, there would be considerably more than 10 advisers to each member of the Board. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), if he is familiar with Gaelic proverbs, will know one which says that it is not always advisable to have 21 shepherds for 20 sheep. But the Liberal Party is proposing at least 10 advisers in the consultative committee to each member of the Board.
There is a problem which I and the hon. Member have in common and on which we are very anxious to co-operate. The Highlands area has a variety of problems. It is an area in which the tasks which will confront the Board have been neglected for a very long time. Indeed, some have never been tackled. We shall need a great variety of capacities, experience and specialist knowledge. Six is not a big number. Among the six, plus the chairman, there may well be some not of the high quality that we all wish to see. It is extremely important to have a good number with a variety of capacity. We must allow for failures and wastage. The Minister is right in allowing for some elbow room in choosing at least one part-time member.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that more advice and information is available in the Highlands than practically anywhere else? Surely what is wanted is an executive Board.

Mr. MacMillan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will direct his remark to his colleague who suggests that there should be a consultative committee of 70 persons. If we have all that advice in the Highlands, why do we want 70 more persons on a committee to offer advice?
This is not worth quarrelling over. All of us in all parties have the welfare of the Highlands at heart. We want the highest quality men that we can get. I am not very anxious about whether the chairman gets £10,000 or £12,000 a year. There is the difficulty that one person may be of very high capacity, while others have a great sense of dedication and would regard this as a great oppor-

tunity to give service and would not be interested in obtaining £10,000 a year.
The hon. Member is perhaps wrong in trying to evaluate the services of these people in terms of fixed sums of £10,000, £12,000, and so on. There are in the Highlands people who would gladly give their services for a great deal less, and that does not mean that their services are not really worth considerably more. However, the figure of £10,000 is not worth arguing about. It must be left to the Minister.
I agree that we want people of quality who are being competed for elsewhere. We may find that in the Highlands we have people with a deep sense of dedication who would look upon the Highlands problems as offering a great challenge and an opportunity to serve. The hon. Member perhaps underestimates the patriotism of people available in the North, inside and outside the Highlands, who are interested in the problem. I am sure that they would be willing to serve. That, however, was merely something which the hon. Member threw out in passing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to start with a chairman and a Board of six members. It is important to have a variety of capacity. There is a variety of tasks as well as of problems to be performed. By reducing the number of members to four, we would not have men of the best quality. It is desirable to have a membership of six or seven. If, for example, a few fall by the way, there would still be three or four within the seven who would serve the purpose that we all have in mind.

Mr. J. Grimond: I support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) and I should like to make three points. First, I want to emphasise with all the power at my command that the success of the Bill will depend very much upon the calibre of the people who are appointed to the Board. This is a new and most important task and if we can do anything to impress that upon the Government and, through them, the public at large, the more we should raise our voices.
Secondly, I hope that this short debate may strengthen the hands of the Scottish


Office. It is never easy to set up a new organisation of this sort, to get the money for it or to get the people for it. We know full well that the Scottish Office will have to negotiate and probably fight with the Treasury and other Government Departments. On the success of the Scottish Office in this fight will depend a great deal of the future of the Highlands and Islands.
Lastly, I wish to say a word about the Amendment and its relevance to the two points which I have made. Our only reason for emphasising that it may have to be a small Board is partly that a small board might be executively more efficient but chiefly that it might be easier to get people of the right calibre. We are all agreed that it is to be an executive Board.
The Highlands have had a lot of advisory committees and panels, which have done good service, but this is a change and a change which I wholeheartedly welcome. There is no contradiction between supporting an executive body in the Highlands and, at the same time, saying that there should be an advisory committee or panel attached to it.
As I see it, this is a new job in the Highlands. It is an executive job and one which will call for remarkable skills. Whoever is appointed to it must have considerable commercial and business experience. The members of the Board must have real feeling for the Highlands, they must be in tune with the possibilities and traditions of the Highlands and they must be considerable diplomats into the bargain.
People of that character are not all that easy to come by. If they are available, they may have doubts about staking their reputation, which I want them to do, on the success of the Board. I want to see people in the prime of life who will stake their reputation on making it a success. I hope and believe that that is what the Government want, too.
I do not support the Amendment in any sense hostile to the Government. I have read the proceedings of the Committee and the excellent reasoning put forward by the Minister of State, but I re-emphasise with all the power at my command that we need to get two or three people of the highest quality, even

if we have to search some time for them—and I do not blame the Secretary of State for taking his time about this. If we have to pay them a lot of money and if we have to go, perhaps, outside the usual channels to get them, I hope that we will do so and that we will get away from the stage army which goes round and round occupying various jobs.
I hope that we get away from the idea that the job is one for a retired person or for someone who has done well in some other walk of life. If we strengthen the Government's hand in that direction, we shall have done a good afternoon's work today. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chamber seems to me to be rather warm. Would it outrage the traditions of Parliament if hon. Members could remove their jackets or get some coolth?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the House thinks that we would be quite attractive enough with those exercises. It might be rather a departure which we would not want to follow. If, however, the hon. Member is feeling cooked in any sense, I am sure that what he has said will have been noted by those who control our temperatures.

Mr. John Brewis: Surely, the point is that the Bill provides for a maximum number of seven and there is no reason why the Secretary of State should not appoint a Board consisting of less than seven members—say, four, or, it may be, only three. As yet, we know so little of what the Secretary of State means the Board to do and so little about the people whom he intends to appoint that we should leave a certain elasticity. It may be that on the analogy of the Crofters Commission, the right hon. Gentleman intends to appoint one man from each of the crofter counties to look after matters on an area basis.
It may be that the Secretary of State will not find it possible to get people of the calibre he requires to act as full-time members. We hope that he succeeds in getting them, but we should not exclude the possibility of getting people who are prepared to act as part-time members of the Board. People who are of considerable calibre probably already


have occupations and would not be prepared to give full-time services to the Board. It would be a great pity to be unnecessarily restrictive so that the Secretary of State could not get a good man who was prepared to serve only part-time. I do not think that we should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Noble: I wish to detain the House for only a few moments, because although many of us are refreshed after a pleasant gap between the sitting this morning and this afternoon, none of us need feel it necessary to continue this discussion very long. I should like to make two or three quick points.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) that the Bill provides for the appointment of a chairman and not more than six members and that this gives the Secretary of State power to choose only two, three or four members, as he wishes, bearing in mind the quorum which is stipulated elsewhere in the Bill.
I suggest strongly to the Secretary of State, however, that if he thinks of collecting his Board on an area basis, with one member from each of the crofter counties, this would be a great mistake. I hope very much that he will be able to find people who are prepared to stake their reputations, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) suggested. It may be difficult to get such people, or all of such people, from the Highland area.
My hope would be that at least the bulk of the members of the Board might come from people between the 35 to 45 age group who have, perhaps, not made their way in life but have already shown the necessary qualities of drive and new thinking that is certainly necessary if the Board is to be a success. They are all the more necessary because as yet—we may have more information this afternoon and this evening—we have had very little sign that the Government themselves have been able to do this new thinking for the Board.

Mr. George Younger: I am strongly in agreement with the objects of the Liberal Party's Amendment, but I do not think that the Amendment itself would achieve the object which they intend. As I understood the hon. Member

for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), who moved the Amendment, his main object was that if we reduced the number of members of the Board to four there would be a better chance of a bigger salary for each of them and, therefore, of attracting a better standard of person. It would be an attractive idea if people's minds worked that way, but I do not think that they will. It would not be a good way to start the Board for those who are setting it up to make their starting point, "We have got so much money to spend and therefore we can give them each so much."
I feel very strongly that we should give the Secretary of State freedom to have his six members. One can appreciate that he will be thinking ahead as to how he will use this freedom to have six if he needs them, and I do not think that he will be thinking simply of what we can afford or thinking, "We cannot afford six members because we have not got enough money for their salaries."
While sympathising very much with all that has been said by the hon. Members of the Liberal Party, and particularly by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I hope that we shall leave the Secretary of State his flexibility to have six, and if he cannot find six suitable persons he need not have so many.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: The main point I was making was not on the question of money, but having a smaller body, more closely knit, more professional, more likely to be a good executive body.

4.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We have had a very good debate about this, and certainly there has been no question of trying to force anything upon the Secretary of State other than for the best of reasons. It has been made clear from all we have heard that what we all want and seek is the best possible Board for the task which it has to perform. This is where we start.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) was right to point out that this is not a Board which will have one very clear line of approach. It will have problems


varying in every part of the Highlands and in every island. It is not a case of each island having a problem; on many an island there will be seven different problems; and that in itself, I think, must determine the nature of the Board we want.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), who moved the Amendment, was moving more or less an Amendment which had been moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). Let us get out of our minds that we are restricted by finance. That would not restrict us, either as to the number of personnel or the payment we would think right in any particular case to the right person. I do not think that this arises at all. Whether we have four, as the hon. Member suggests, plus a chairman, or whether, as we suggest, we leave it at six plus the chairman, the question of finance is irrelevant.
We consider that with six plus the chairman, as it stands at the moment, with the majority of these being full-time, we have got a certain flexibility, in relation to the other places, to be able to bring in a part-time person whose specialised knowledge, or drive and experience, and so on, may be required over a period. If we limit the Board to full-time men and to a small number that will mean that this is their career. It is quite wrong to say that this is the only way it could be done or the best way it could be done, bearing in mind the kind of men we want to do the kind of job we want done, and all the limitations there are if for each of them it is a full-time job, for that narrows the field considerably.
It would be quite unwise—I do not say wrong, but unwise—not to leave ourselves the possibility of flexibility to bring in the valuable part-timers. Nobody is going to tell us that in this part of the country part-time men are not valuable. Whose name is the name most revered in the Highlands? Tom Johnston's: the Hydro-Electric Board, whose part-time chairman he was. Do not judge by the amount of money he was paid, because I doubt very much whether he took any payment at all. I do not think that anyone would quibble over the qualities of the present chairman of the Hydro-

Electric Board, Lord Strathclyde, and he, also, is part-time. I think that the connotation of part time may have given the impression, "Well, you do not get the quality men in this way."
I think that it would be right to retain six, to retain the present stimulus through the majority being full time, giving us that bit of elbow room to move up to six if necessary where we require those individuals to be brought in for their specific advice and experience. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was quite right about it, as was the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). But please, do not push upon the Secretary of State an elected Board, as was suggested by one of the back-bench Conservative Members in Committee. Please do not push the further restriction of people representative of areas. This would be so wrong, with a struggle over priorities between areas, and about the amount of money spent.
What we want is a Board which will be able to look at the whole problem, to see whether we can advance through each and all of the various tasks and functions in relation to land use, fishing, industry, tourism, and the rest; to do something which will be for the benefit of the whole area, and to advance towards a settlement of all the problems of the area. It will not be quick; it will not be fast. Those who have said that the people who take on this task will be staking their reputations are right. We want people of quality, it may well be people of potentiality whose quality has not been realised yet. There will be a field for them here. We want the flexibility of the qualities of potentiality and also of maturity, of part-time professionals, and also persons who can be brought in to do a special job.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to think about this again, and, I hope, to see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) raised a complaint about the temperature in the Chamber. I have had a report from the Serjeant at Arms. The control room reports that the temperature in the Chamber is 68 degrees, which is the


normal temperature in these conditions, but that it is being arranged to have it lowered to 66 or 67.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, at the end to insert:
, but before appointing a member to be deputy chairman the Secretary of State shall consult with the chairman.
In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) moved that the deputy-chairman should be appointed by the chairman of the Board. I resisted that Amendment at the time on the ground that it was quite against statutory precedent, and also for another reason, concerning the responsibilities of a chairman and deputy-chairman. The chairman is in a position where he has a dual responsibility. He has a responsibility both to his committee and also a responsibility to the Minister who appoints him. Of course, the same arguments are true of a statutory vice-chairman, because it is conceivable that the chairman may be absent for quite long periods of time during which the vice-chairman would be in exactly the same position as the chairman.
However, I promised to look at this, and we have gone some way by this Amendment towards meeting the right hon. Gentleman. We suggest that before appointing a member to be the deputy-chairman the Secretary of State shall consult the chairman. That seems to us to go half-way towards meeting the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be willing to accept this compromise.

Mr. Noble: The Minister of State has come a small way towards meeting me. I am always grateful for any advances, however small, but, as I think he will remember, when we discussed this point in Committee one of the purposes behind my Amendment was to try to give the Board a greater sense of freedom and initiative and rather less sense, and appearance as one reads the Bill, of being a small and in some ways not very important department of St. Andrew's House.
What the Minister of State has said is true as far as it goes. It certainly is an improvement to put these words in the Bill, but one is bound to feel, as I think he felt in Committee, that normally the Secretary of State in almost

every case would consult the chairman before he appointed a deputy-chairman. Therefore, what is now to be written into the Bill is no improvement on what any ordinary, intelligent and sensible Secretary of State would do. However, I do not want to press the point of view which I put forward earlier although I think that it is still valid. There may be other occasions during our consideration of the Bill when I shall try to bring forward again the matter of the importance of giving the Board a little more status both for the sake of its members and of its reputation in Scotland.
I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment as having come some way to meeting my point.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I hope that the Government can give us some indication of the consequences of the Amendment, Dr. King. There will be many matters on which the Secretary of State will have to consult with the chairman of the Board but it is quite clear, Dr. King, that in considering the appointment of a deputy chairman—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. In the House the Chair must be addressed as the Chair and not by the name of its occupant. It is occupied by the Deputy Speaker at the moment.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
It is quite clear that when the Secretary of State is considering consulting the chairman on the appointment of a deputy chairman he simply will not look round the five or six members of the Board and ask himself, "Who will I have?" It is clear that he will appoint members of the Board with the prospect very much in mind of one of them being deputy chairman. In the circumstances it is clear that between the appointment of the chairman and the choosing of the deputy chairman, after consulting the chairman, and the appointment of other members of the Board, there will inevitably be delay if the right decision is to be made.
We have not at present any indication who the chairman might be and by accepting the Amendment we shall be introducing another factor which will delay the setting up of the Board and the appointment of chairman and deputy chairman.
It had been hoped on both sides of the House that perhaps on this day, or even before now, some announcement of who the chairman would be might have been made. We ought to have some indication from the Secretary of State when the announcement will be made, because upon it the whole progress and future of the Board depends.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) for his attitude towards this advance. It was a very proper advance made to him. I can assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who has not been long in the House, that we have not yet had permission from Parliament to do all the things that he wants us to do. Until we have permission it is customary not to make an announcement and take for granted the will of Parliament.
This is the customary reason for the announcement or non-announcement of boards, chairman and the rest. It is not long since hon. Members were telling me to search the world and find the best man for this job. We are determined to get the best man and when Parliament has given us the authority we shall make the necessary announcement.

Amendment agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 10, after "functions", to insert:
in relation to matters appearing to him to affect the public interest".
The purpose of the Amendment is to impose a restriction on the very wide power which the Clause gives to the Secretary of State to give directions to the Board. In that respect it is in line with the observations which my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) made a moment ago on the intention to strengthen the independence and status of the Board and not to leave the Board subject to general directions by the Secretary of State.
It is recognised that in all matters of this kind when a statutory body is set up there must be reserve power on the part of the Secretary of State to give general directions. That is to be found, as the Secretary of State is very well

aware, in a whole series of Statutes, and it is usually to be found in the terms in which this Clause would be if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Wylie: Yes, generally.
It is to be found in the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, in these terms, as I mentioned in Committee, and it is to be found in somewhat similar terms and to the same respect in the Airports Authority Act which Parliament recently passed. Section 2(6) of that Act provides that
The Minister may, after consultation with the Authority, give to the Authority directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Authority of its functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and it shall be the duty of the Authority to give effect to any such directions.
There is, therefore, precedent for this kind of thing. I put it no higher.
The view expressed by the Minister of State in Committee was that because the discretion was left to the Secretary of State to decide whether the direction was in the public interest, these words meant nothing at all. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that that is still his view and presumably that is the advice that he received. If that is so, in my respectful submission the advice was wrong because the inclusion of these words imposes a restriction on the field over which the Secretary of State can give general directions.
As the Clause stands, provided that the directions are of a general character, the Secretary of State can give any directions at all, however trival. He can give the same kind of directions to the Board as he will be able to give to his own Department, and that is precisely the kind of thing which all along we have been trying to avoid.
If the words of the Amendment are accepted, although the Clause is still bound to leave the Secretary of State wide discretion, it will, nevertheless, impose upon him the obligation, if need be, to establish that the directions of a general character which he is giving are in the public interest. I visualise—

Mr. Willis: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member, with his legal


training, should be unable to read this. The Amendment says:
in relation to matters appearing to him to affect the public interest.
In other words, he judges whether it is in the public interest.

Mr. Wylie: Since I wrote the Amendment, obviously I know what is in it. I referred to the fact that, because it appeared to him to be in the public interest, that was the end of the matter. That is the view which the Minister of State expressed. If that is the legal advice which he has been given, in my submission, it is wrong. Any statutory or discretionary power of this nature must be exercised in a bona fide manner.
If the Secretary of State gave directions to this Board which on no possible view could be said to raise a matter of public interest, that would be ultra vires of this Clause. If, of course, on any reasonable view, they could be said to affect the public interest, that would be within the scope of the Clause as it at present stands, without those words. There is no restriction whatsoever on the nature of the directions which the Secretary of State can give to the Board, always provided, of course, that they are of a general character.
The Minister of State repeatedly expresses concern about my views on things because I am a lawyer. I can assure the hon. Member that I thought very carefully about this. In view of the suggestion made in Standing Committee as to what his legal advice was, I took the trouble to discuss this with a number of my learned friends in Edinburgh. The view which I am expressing is a point of view. It may be wrong, like most points of view on legal matters. I do not think so and many other people do not think so, either. I ask the House to accept the Amendment. If the Amendment makes no difference, as the Minister thinks, then let us accept it and we can all get on. I am certain that it does make a difference. I think that it makes an important difference affecting the status and freedom of action of the board.
For these reasons, I counsel the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Grimond: I rise to speak very briefly, and, first, to ask a question. I

am aware that these words appear in other Acts. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) could give us any examples of how they have operated in connection with these other Acts. Having read all the proceedings in Committee, I find it difficult to know what difference they would make in this Act.

Mr. Wylie: The point is, of course, that if these words are in the Clause, if the powers which the Secretary of State is given are qualified by those words, one would expect—and experience has shown—that the Secretary of State does not or would not give the kind of directions which might lay themselves open to be described as ultra vires. I know of no case that has ever been brought to a court of law to test this kind of thing, but, for reasons good or bad, these words have been included in other Sections. That is the effect of these words and, in the context of the Bill, having regard to control which the Secretary of State has over this Board, it seems to me to be an advisable provision to put into the Bill.

Mr. Grimond: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I cannot say that I feel much enlightened, because I am still rather at a loss to know what effect these words would have. If they have never been tested in other Acts, we are precluded from such experience that this might give us. As I read it, the Secretary of State can give directions only of a general character, even under the Bill. Therefore, he is precluded from giving a direction for some specific purpose such as taking over distilleries, even as the Bill is now.
Finally, and in particular, I think that we are all against writing words into a Bill which do not appear to be essential, simply on the ground that they might do some good, although no one is quite clear what good they will do. Therefore, unless there is further argument on this subject, at the moment my mind would be slightly in favour of leaving the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I recollect that we had some fairly lengthy discussion on this matter in Standing Committee, and I echo the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I am very reluctant indeed to criticise the hon. and


learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). He has said, in the first place, that these words are necessary, that there is precedent for these words, that they will place a restriction on the Secretary of State, they will help the Board, and that they ought to be there. The only thing he has not explained is why. Without being in any way disrespectful, it seems to me that this is a piece of traditional legal "bumbledom".
I will quote the one argument which was used in Standing Committee. The hon. and learned Member endeavoured to give a specific example where the insertion of these words would make a difference. He said:
… of necessity a wide discretion is left to the Secretary of State and he has power to restrict the freedom and action of the Board, a power which, without the Amendment relating to the public interest, could not be challenged. If the Amendment were accepted, those powers could be challenged"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 1st April, 1965; c. 187.]
In other words, he was making a clear distinction in a certain situation, but the situation, to my mind, is so hypothetical and unlikely that if there were such a situation as was visualised by the hon. and learned Member in which the Secretary of State was in dispute with the Board, the whole arrangement—itself so hypothetical as to be totally unrealistic, even in the unlikely possibility of its happening—the whole system would have broken down anyway.
This is not a valid argument and I would suggest to the Committee that the hon. and learned Member has not made a case for these words meaning anything. If they do not mean anything, why have them?

Mr. Willis: We had a fairly long argument about this in Standing Committee and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) has not produced any new arguments in its support. The Amendment has been put down and we are covering roughly the same ground again. The hon. and learned Member has told us that there are legal precedents for this and he has quoted the same two precedents as in Committee, namely—

Mr. Wylie: There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Willis: There is nothing wrong with that, but the examples are the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, and the Airports Authority Act. I should like to give some a little nearer to the Highlands and quote precedents. They are the Crofters Act, 1955, in which these words do not appear; the Deer (Scotland) Act, in which these words do not appear; the Housing Act, 1964, which has more relevance to the Highlands than the two precedents which he quotes. These words do not appear in that Act, nor in the New Towns Act, 1946. As I pointed out in Standing Committee, there seems to be no rule governing the use of these words. Our advice certainly is that they add nothing whatever to the Bill.
I would ask the hon. and learned Member to read the words of his Amendment:
In relation to matters appearing to him to affect the public interest.
If the Secretary of State is challenged—as the hon. and learned Member says is possible—if we accept this Amendment, all he has to say is, "It appears to me"—

Mr. Wylie: No.

Mr. Willis: The Amendment says:
In relation to matters appearing to him to affect the public interest.

Mr. Wylie: The point which I tried to make is that I accept that these words give a very wide discretion to the Secretary of State. He could say, "I think that this direction of mine is in the public interest" and in possibly almost every conceivable case, that will be so and accepted. But if the direction is of a kind which on no conceivable view could be said to be in the public interest, that would not be a proper exercise of these statutory powers. It would not be enough for the Secretary of State to say, "None the less, I think it is." If it is a direction of a trivial nature, the kind of direction which he would give to his own employees, how could he justify a direction of that nature as being in the public interest? That is the kind of situation which I had in mind.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I become increasingly bewildered by the arguments which


lawyers sometimes adduce. With the Amendment, the subsection would read:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board, give to the Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of their functions in relation to matters appearing to him to affect the public interest.
It is clear from that that the Secretary of State would decide the general directions. That is precisely what the Clause would say if the Amendment were accepted. It will be seen that acceptance of it would make no difference whatever to the provision and, that being so, I advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I support the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), although he has been given a rough ride on this one. I remind the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) that bumbledon is not the prerogative of lawyers.
Bills of this sort are always a mass of words, virtually unintelligible to the ordinary reader, and in their wisdom this seems to be the drafters' best way of producing them. If it is true that the words in the Amendment mean so little, why should they not be inserted? A few words more or less in a Bill like this will make no difference.

Mr. Willis: If the words mean nothing, to include them would create the impression that they mean something. We would no doubt have endless arguments about their meaning and, of course, the members of the hon. Gentleman's profession would be delighted.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: If they mean nothing the situation would not be altered one way or the other. I thought that the most cogent part of the remarks adduced in favour of the Amendment concerned the status of the Board—that if the Board is simply to be in the same position as the Secretary of State's own Department it will not achieve the status in Scotland that it must achieve if it is to work effectively. If it is tied up with the Government in that way, particularly the present Government, there is no question that the attitude of the people of Scotland towards it will be highly doubtful.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I admit to having been rather confused on this matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said that the words in the Amendment appeared in the recently-passed Airports Authority Act. Would the Minister of State say why they were inserted in that Measure and why he objects to them being included in this one? What advice has he received from the Law Officers?

Mr. Ross: I am surprised that the Bill came so quickly from the Scottish Grand Committee. We are discussing a real Scottish point. It is the kind of thing which Scots love to get their teeth into.
The one speech that merits a reply was that delivered by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). He began by saying that statutes were a mass of words, that people did not understand them, so we might as well add some more. That is good, sound Tory logic. "We are not going to 'kid' the people outside. They do not understand it, anyway. Let us just 'kid' ourselves", is what he was really saying. I have in my time been a bit of a purist when it came to tabling Amendments in the Scottish Grand Committee.
If there was one Measure in which the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) took an interest, it was the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959. He allowed that Measure to slip through without the general direction contained in the Amendment—the direction which is supposed to be so grave, important, and such an absolutely essential piece of constitutional restriction on the Secretary of State. On that occasion we had the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General both in attendance. It was unusual to have them there together. Perhaps their presence resulted in the Measure having slipped through without the provision contained in the Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands admitted that having discussed the Amendment with his colleagues in Edinburgh, there had been a certain amount of doubt about whether or not it was essential to be included in the Clause. It must be remembered that we are considering a possible situation involving a dispute between the Board and the Secretary


of State. The Clause begins with the words:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board …
Consultations to settle the differences. That is at the beginning of the Clause. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we are not talking about whether the members of the Board should use fine or broad nibs or whether the sign outside their office should be painted in blue, red or white.
We are not concerned with trivialities. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, no Secretary of State would invoke these powers for something trivial and anyone who reads subsection (2) will appreciate the nature of the provision. In any case, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had felt it so important to include the Amendment he should have made it absolutely clear that he wished to give greater power to the Board by deleting the phrase in his own Amendment, "appearing to him".

Mr. Wylie: Mr. Wylie indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: I was not a member of the Committee. I missed all this fun. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well why the words at present in the subsection are there and why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I have seen the words used in the Clause in one statute after another in relation to general powers of this sort. I urge him to think again on this issue. We do not want to fall out over an Amendment of this sort. The case we have made is amply proved by the Measures quoted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, including the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, the Deer (Scotland) Act, 1959, and the Housing Act, 1964. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that to accept the Amendment would make the obscure far more obscure. It would only help the lawyers to find something else about which to argue. The Clause will be better off without it and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press it.

Mr. Noble: The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have given us for a moment a flash back to the past when there were Law Officers from this side of the House. They were doing their best, they said, to learn from those Law Officers important aspects of Scottish law. They

were rather slow as learners. It is quite clear that after a great many years they have not learned very much.
By what the right hon Gentleman and his hon. Friend have said they have not in one single aspect changed the points made quietly and seriously by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). He said that he does not wish to restrict the main powers of the Secretary of State and if the words "appearing to him" were taken out of the Amendment it would be much more restrictive on the Secretary of State. My hon. and learned Friend said that it is not likely that in a great many cases the addition of these words would make a significant difference to the behaviour of the Secretary of State or the Board, but it has been thought necessary by Governments in the past—two cases have been quoted—to put in words of this sort.
The Minister of State quoted four other what he called much more apposite cases affecting crofters, housing and new towns, but every one of those is concerned with a totally different type of body. There is no relevance whatever between this sort of words and that sort of body. Whether we had Law Officers present when those Measures were going through the House is of no importance. The powers and statutory nature of the Board are quite different from any of the things mentioned in the Measures to which the Minister of State referred.
The Secretary of State said that he does not regard the words as essential or as adding anything. My hon. and learned Friend has taken a great deal of trouble over this matter. He has spoken with his hon. and learned Friends who believe that these words should be in the Bill and that they would be a help. I and my hon. Friends accept my hon. and learned Friend's words and do not pay very much attention to the opinions of the Minister of State in this regard. I do not think we need spend a great deal of time on this small but important Amendment. It is important especially because it would give to the Board that little extra status and show to the world that it is not just a department of St. Andrews House.
I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support my hon. and learned Friends in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 133.

Division No. 185.]
AYES
[5.12 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gammans, Lady
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gibson-Watt, David
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Glover, Sir Douglas
Peyton, John


Baker, W. H. K.
Goodhew, Victor
Pym, Francis


Balniel, Lord
Grant-Ferris, R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm.)
Hawkins, Paul
Stodart, Anthony


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Brewis, John
Kilfedder, James A.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Kirk, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Campbell, Gordon
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Channon, H. P. G,
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Walters, Dennis


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Weatherill, Bernard


Costain, A. P.
McLaren, Martin
Webster, David


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Whitelaw, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
McMaster, Stanley
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Marten, Neil
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Curran, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Wise, A. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mitchell, David
Wylie, N. R.


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper



Eyre, Reginald
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, Sir John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Mr. MacArthur and




Mr. R. W. Elliott.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bence, Cyril
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
MacMillan, Malcolm


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Marsh, Richard


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mason, Roy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holman, Percy
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hooson, H. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horner, John
Molloy, William


Chapman, Donald
Howie, W.
Murray, Albert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoy, James
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Norwood, Christopher


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
O'Malley, Brian


Diamond, John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Orme, Stanley


Doig, Peter
Jeger, George (Goole)
Oswald, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Palmer, Arthur


Ennals, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman


Floud, Bernard
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G.


Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rankin, John


Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus
Redhead, Edward


Garrow, A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor


Gourlay, Harry
Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Grey, Charles
McCann, J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
MacDermot, Niall
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hale, Leslie
McKay, Mir. Margaret
Rose, Paul B.




Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Wallace, George


Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Warbey, William


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Taverne, Dick
Whitlock, William


Silkin, John (Deptford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thornton, Ernest



Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Fitch.

Clause 3.—(DUTIES OF THE BOARD.) ·

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "after" to "from" in line 26 and to insert:
consultation with such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest,".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): With this Amendment it will be for the convenience of the House to take Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 24, leave out from beginning to third "to" in line 26 and insert:
to consult from time to time with local authorities in the Highlands and Islands and other bodies which are affected or concerned, and".

Mr. Willis: In Committee we had considerable discussion about the first three lines of subsection (1,b). The discussion centred around two principal points. The first was whether there should be regular meetings of local authorities and other bodies in the Highlands and Islands. The second was the unsatisfactory nature of the words in the first three lines of the paragraph. During the proceedings I said that I would examine this again. I was not too happy about the words in line 26.
We have examined it and as a result have tabled this Amendment, which puts in words which are more satisfactory than those in the subsection as it stands. I did not like the words "to be appropriate", because they left the Board a discretion which I did not think was one which should be put into a Bill. Rather, the Board should consult the local authorities and bodies concerned about any scheme which it is putting before the Secretary of State.
The effect of the Amendment is to make it quite clear. If the Amendment is accepted, the Clause will read in this way:
after consultation with such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest, from time to time to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals".

In other words, the Board will consult local authorities and other bodies, frame proposals after such consultations, and present them to the Secretary of State. That covers what we feel to be necessary in this context.
Amendment No. 8 suggests that there should be regular meetings
with local authorities in the Highlands and Islands and other bodies which are affected or concerned
I am not certain what the words at the end of the Amendment mean.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: They are taken exactly from the words the Minister of State suggested in Committee as being a possible alternative.

Mr. Willis: I have not got the reference, so I cannot say exactly what I said in Committee. I do not think I suggested these exact words for an Amendment. Whether I did or no, the proposition here is that there should be regular meetings with local authorities and other bodies concerned. We do not think this is necessary. The Board is engaged in doing a task. It is considering schemes.

Mr. Campbell: I have the Minister's words here and, as he cannot find them, I will show the report to him.

Mr. Willis: I do not think that my words are so desperately important as all that. The hon. Gentleman attributes much more importance to some of the things I say than I sometimes attribute to them myself. I am flattered that that should be so. The point about the Amendment, which is what we are concerned with now, is whether there should be regular meetings of local authorities and other bodies with the Board. We do not think this is necessary, because there will be a consultative council which will be representative, amongst other interests, of local authorities and bodies which might be concerned. That consultative council will hold regular meetings. It will make proposals and representations to the Board. To put into


this subsection a provision to the effect that the Board should, in addition, have regular meetings, seems to us to be duplicating something which is already allowed for in the Bill.
The second argument is that the subsection deals with the procedure of the Board in preparing and presenting proposals to the Secretary of State. The Board might go to a certain area—it might be Inverness-shire, Sutherland, or Argyll. The Board might draw up a scheme for a certain area. If it is a scheme for that particular area, clearly the Board will consult the local authorities concerned in the area or those which might be affected although they are some distance from it, provided they are affected, and the statutory bodies concerned. Having done that, the Board will then prepare the scheme and present it to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 9 makes it clear that this will be done.
If that is done, we do not see that there is any necessity for the regular meetings suggested in Amendment No. 8, since the regular meetings of the kind referred to in Amendment No. 8 will be held in any case through the consultative council. It is a duplication of effort and it is unnecessary to put it into the subsection. It is out of context here. We therefore suggest that those who have put their names to Amendment No. 8 might be prepared to accept the Government Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Government's Amendment is a great improvement upon the original wording of the Bill. There is a difference between Amendment No. 8 and the Government's Amendment which I will explain later. Two of our points have been met by the Government's Amendment. We agree on both sides that it is important that the new Board should be in close touch with the local authorities concerned with its work. There is a danger that the Board might appear to be ignoring county councils or burgh councils or might inadvertently ignore them, and, of course, these councils have great experience of conditions in their own areas and of projects which have been tried in the past. I am sure that if the local authorities and the Board work together the local authorities will wel-

come the Board and will welcome most, if not all, of its proposals. But there is a danger that the Board could appear to be riding roughshod over some councils, and these councils might sincerely hold strong views about projects being put forward by the Board. We all agree that this would be a great pity. This is the background to our Amendment, which the Government are, I think, trying to meet.
To take up the first point which the Minister mentioned, the original wording which ran
after such consultation … as appears to the Board to be appropriate
was objectionable because it could mean no consultation at all if the Board took it into its mind not to have any. That point has been met by the Government Amendment. There is the second point that, under the Bill, local authorities outwith the Highland area as currently defined in Clause 1 might not be consulted, and we wanted to make clear that they ought to be included in consultation where appropriate. As I said just now, we are adopting wording which the Minister of State himself suggested in Committee as an alternative.

Mr. Willis: When I read what I said in Committee, I feel bound to comment on its clarity and also on the fact that the hon. Gentleman has distorted what I said. I said:
I am not quite sure what the alternative might be. It might 'after such consultation with local authorities … and other bodies which are affected or concerned'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th April, 1965; c. 364.]
I said that in the light of the examples being proposed. But I did not add in front of those words the words which the hon. Gentleman has added, "to consult from time to time". That is the difference.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman was saying that he could not understand the meaning of "other bodies which are affected or concerned". This we had taken from what he had himself suggested in Committee. When he made the suggestion, we were beginning the eighth sitting, and he had had the benefit of three or four days since we had proposed our Amendment so one assumes that it was the result of his consultations and advice outside the Committee. We used


these words because he had suggested them and we thought that they would meet what he regarded as the best way of dealing with authorities outwith the Highland area. We gather from what he said today that the Government Amendment covers local authorities outwith the immediate area of interest. I hope that the Government will confirm that that is the situation. If it is, our second point has been met.
There is the further point that a situation can arise in which the Board is putting forward a project which will bring benefit to an area embracing one or two local authorities but which may have effects upon another area, effects which could be of doubtful value or even adverse, and those other authorities might be outwith the Highland area with which we are particularly concerned. I cannot do better than give the example of the Spey Valley where for some years there have been suggestions that there should be a drainage scheme but where it appears also that such a scheme might increase the danger of flooding 30 miles away and well outwith the Highland area. Where the Board has an area for which it is itself responsible, it is possible that it may be, or may be thought to be, considering the interests of the area for which it is responsible and, perhaps, not considering quite so carefully the interests of another area 30 miles away for which it is not responsible. The example I have given is a very real one, and there may well be others.
The third point which is not clearly met by the Government Amendment is that, in our view, there should be a duty on the Board to have regular consultations with local authorities. We do not mean formal meetings or plenary meetings of all the local authorities in the area. We mean a process of keeping local authorities informed of what the Board can properly tell them about projects coming forward and having the way open for discussion of ideas between local authorities and the Board.
The Minister of State visualised much the same because in Committee he said that the Government wished to see a regular process of consultation between the Board and local authorities. This is just what we want, too. We had hoped that it would be possible to write it into the Bill

to make the matter clear. I should be glad if the Government would make clear again in the House that they visualise a regular process of consultation, not necessarily formal, because in that event we shall gladly accept their Amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I sympathise with several of the points made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), but I feel that by their Amendment the Government have met a great deal of the criticisms which were made in Committee. In his second point, the hon. Gentleman brought out something which would, perhaps, require more clarification, that is, the point he illustrated with the specific example of the Spey Valley and adjacent areas.
Everyone is quoting everyone else, so perhaps I may quote my own words at the end of the debate, when I said that I felt that
on a specific project the local authorities concerned, and adjacent authorities which might be affected, should be consulted,
and that this ought to be
in a sense a duty rather than an indefinite obligation on the Board".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 8th April, 1965; c. 229.]
The Government have met this by changing the wording, no longer using the word "appropriate" but speaking of authorities and bodies which have an interest. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn on the second question, and I should like further clarification that what the Government propose will, in fact, cover the adjacent authorities. I assume that it does.
With reference to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I consider that the consultative council will meet the need for regular communication. There are limits to the amount of regular consultation one can have. If there is to be set up a consultative council which, so I understand from the Government in Committee, is to be largely of a representative character, it will be duplicating matters then to arrange for a sort of unofficial and not very formal scheme of regular meetings with local authorities as well. That would be quite unnecessary.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Minister of State showed himself very responsive to the Committee's desires when this


matter was discussed, and he has met most of the points which were raised. He has shown himself not only responsive but very apt in his selection of language, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) should attribute to him full powers of infallibility in being able to declaim in draftsman's language. In Committee my hon. Friend said:
I am not quite sure what the alternative might be, but it might be"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 15th April, 1965; c. 364.]
—and then he quoted certain words. My hon. Friend has done fairly well. He met the point about getting rid of the offending word "appropriate". If this were not done, far too much latitude in discussion would have been left with the Board.
What we are concerned about is this. Where a local authority is affected by projects which are under consideration before presentation to the Secretary of State, obviously that is the point at which that local authority should be consulted. That matter is covered here. The Government's Amendment is probably even better than the more specific Amendment tabled by the Opposition, although it is arguable. The point about local authorities outside the Highlands and Islands area is covered. When they have an interest, the consultations should relate to them.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn made the point that we must not tie up the Board with a series of formalised discussions, whether they are necessary or not. This would detract from the value and status of the Consultative Council. However, we have got rid of the offending word "appropriate" and of the dubiety relating to particular areas. In doing this, we have not so restricted and tied the Board that it will be hampered in going ahead with its discussion and preparation of projects. But if these things are to be done, they must be done with the good will of those authorities representing people who may be affected. It is right that they should enter into the matter from the point of view not only of their interests but of the help which they may be able to give.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been able satisfactorily to meet the wishes of the Commit-

tee on this Amendment, and I hope that the House will see its way to support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 41, at the end to insert:
a summary of any proposals submitted to the Secretary of State under paragraph (b) of this subsection, and, where he has refused to approve any such proposals, a summary of his reasons for so refusing, but shall not disclose any such information as is referred to in section 12(1) of this Act without the consent referred to in that subsection".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can take at the same time Amendment No. 13—page 3, line 3, at end insert:
and every such report shall include a statement of the reasons for the refusal by the Secretary of State to approve proposals under subsection (1)(b) of this section
and Amendment No. 33—Clause 12, page 8, line 6, at end insert:
and no such information shall without such consent be included in any Report laid before Parliament in pursuance of this Act".

Mr. Willis: Again, we come to a matter which was discussed at some length in Committee. It was suggested then that it should be possible for the Board to put into the report not only a list of the proposals which have been approved, but also the proposals which have been refused approval and a note or summary of the reasons for the refusal to approve the proposals.
During the Committee stage I promised to look at this matter, and we have embodied in the Amendment what I promised the Committee I would try to do. There will be a summary of proposals submitted to the Secretary of State under paragraph (b) of subsection (1)
and, where he has refused to approve any such proposals, a summary of his reasons for so refusing, but shall not disclose any such information as is referred to in section 12(1) of this Act without the consent referred to in that subsection.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has tabled two Amendments. I think that we cover both those Amendments by our Amendment. I hope that the Opposition willl accept our Amendment and will not press their own two Amendments.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: There is one point about which I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am


grateful to my hon. Friend for coming part of the way to meeting the point. What is meant by "a summary of any proposals"? Does it mean a summary of each proposal and a summary of the reasons for refusal in each case?

Mr. Willis: That is so.

Mr. Wylie: As the Minister of State has said, Amendment No. 12 meets both the points raised in Amendments Nos. 13 and 33. It may be a matter of taste, but I should have thought that Amendments Nos. 13 and 33 were a better way of dealing with the matter. It is not one on which we should divide.
Subsection (1,e) sets out in positive terms what will be in the report on the exercise and performance of functions under the Bill which sets out directions given to the Board and
a summary of any proposals submitted
which have been refused and a summary of the masons for refusal. Thus far we are dealing with what is in the report. Then the paragraph says that the report will not include certain matters.
It would be better if the non-disclosure provisions were dealt with in the nondisclosure Clause. Just as subsection (1,e) of this Clause sets out in a positive sense what is in the report, so Clause 12(1) deals specifically with the non-disclosure of the information obtained under the preceding Clause. Where it provides that information obtained will not be disclosed without consent, I should have thought that that was the place to put a provision to the effect that it would not go in the report.
Both of these points have been met. If the Minister is in a magnanimous mood, he may care to think about the matter, but we will not press it.

Mr. Willis: My legal advice is exactly the opposite to that of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). My legal advice is that this is the more appropriate place in which to put an Amendment concerning confidentiality.

Mr. Wylie: One would expect that, because your legal advisers have put it there. But again it is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh,

Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) must not address the occupants of the Government Front Bench as "you". He must address the Chair.

Mr. Wylie: I am sorry, Dr. King.

Mr. John Brewis: May I make a small suggestion about Clause 12(1)? There should be a reference to this provision in subsection (1,e). I believe that it is called a signpost in drafting, and it should refer back to the Amendment which I think we will discuss.

Mr. Willis: We will consider that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND.)

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 24, at end to insert:
(4) The powers conferred on the Board by virtue of this section shall apply to—

(a) any land as described or designated in terms of section 1(2) of this Act, and
(b) any land adjacent thereto which the Board reasonably require for the provision of services thereto or for the purpose of any of their functions under this Act

When we discussed Clause 4 in Committee, we were informed by the Government that the acquisition of land by the Board could take place anywhere in Scotland. It was not restricted to the Highland area as defined in Clause 1. We were concerned about this wide power, especially the compulsory acquisition aspect. The Minister of State also explained that the power was necessary beyond the defined area of the Highlands and Islands so that the Board could acquire land in adjacent areas. He gave some examples of places where the Board might be hampered because its power disappeared at the county boundaries on the edge of what are at present the crofting counties.
We recognise that this could be a disability for the Board and we have, therefore, attempted to meet the point by providing this additional subsection, which would make these powers available to the Board in the area defined as the Highlands and Islands and, in addition, in:
… any land adjacent thereto which the Board reasonably require for the provision of services thereto or for the purpose of any of their functions under this Act.


We believe that this meets the requirement indicated by the Minister of State as being outwith the Highland area. We do not believe it necessary for the Board—or, rather, the Secretary of State, because compulsory acquisition will require his permission—to have the power to acquire land perhaps 200 or 300 miles away from the Highlands when what is really required is power in adjacent areas only.
We realise that in this the Board would have to use its power nonetheless wisely, taking into account the wider interests of the adjacent areas as well as the interests of the area for which the Board is to be responsible. But we feel that a board of the quality and integrity of the kind we hope will come into being will certainly take the interests of the surrounding areas to heart as well as those of the area for which it is responsible.
The power of compulsory acquisition in this Clause can be coupled with powers under Clause 6. We were told in Committee that Clause 6 would have effect anywhere in the United Kingdom and not just in Scotland. The present Administration have made it clear that they regard the Clause 6 powers as in reserve, but a Government perhaps more left-wing which which determined, perhaps for doctrinaire reasons, to take over a business in the Highlands or elsewhere in Scotland, whether flourishing or not, would have power to acquire land and buildings in the first place under Clause 4 and could then make the situation intolerable and virtually impossible for the business to carry on, finally acquiring it by agreement under Clause 6. Therefore, in considering the area over which the Board could operate Clause 4 powers, we must also consider their combination with the powers available elsewhere in the Bill.
The Minister should be able to accept our Amendment in view of his previous explanation in Committee as to why powers were needed outwith the Highland area. If we have not drafted the Amendment entirely as it should be in technical and legal terms in order to carry out the intention, we hope that he will say so and perhaps improve the drafting by an Amendment in another place.
We feel that the compulsory acquisition of land allied to the other powers all over Scotland is quite unnecessary power for

the Government to seek in this context. It is Parliament's task to provide the power which may be required for its will to be carried out but not to provide wholesale powers which are unnecessary to the Executive—in this case, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Board itself ought to have more say in its own affairs. We think that the Board is not being given enough discretion. But at the moment we are concerned about the powers which are virtually being given to the Secretary of State and the Government and not to the Board. Those powers are far too wide under this Clause.

Mr. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman speaks of the need—with which I agree—to give the Board more discretion. I see that in Standing Committee it was stated by his colleague that it might be useful for the Board to be able to acquire property in London. It might also be useful to acquire a depôt in Perth or Aberdeen. Is this the sort of discretion that the hon. Gentleman would like to leave to the Board? Would this be covered by the word "adjacent" in the Amendment, or is this just the sort of thing that the Amendment would cut out?

Mr. Campbell: In Committee, the Minister of State was saying that, under the Bill as drafted, such a thing was possible. Clause 4 powers extend to the whole of Scotland. He said that Clause 6 powers extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. So land and buildings in Scotland and a business in London could be acquired by agreement.
The Minister explained that the situation visualised by the Government had to be met in the areas adjacent to the Highland area. Our Amendment is different from the one we moved in Committee and tries to meet the point which the Government put. The Government were not prepared to accept entirely what we said in Committee. We have tried to put into writing a more restricted form of words which would cover what the Minister of State in Committee said was required. I am the first to admit that our drafting may be imperfect but I hope that the intention is quite clear. Although it may be possible for the Board to acquire buildings and land under the Bill in places far removed from the Highlands, that is not really the problem we want to meet by Clause 4.

Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman should tell us the effect of the Amendment. That is what we want to know.

Mr. Campbell: I am coming to that. I want first to make it clear that we consider that the Board should have more say in its own affairs. That will become clear in later Amendments in which we would give it more say in its own affairs and more discretion. The powers to which we are objecting are those being given to the Government, not those being given to the Board.
6.0 p.m.
The purpose of the Amendment is clear from my opening remarks. Instead of limiting the power to acquire land, including compulsory acquisition, to the Highlands and Islands as defined in the Bill, which is what we proposed in Committee, we are now suggesting that it should be extended to a wider area, which would cover the adjacent areas, and that the Board should have a discretion to decide whether they are areas in which it requires the provision of services, and so on, as laid down in the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am not concerned about how the Amendment affects an Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved unsuccessfully in Committee. I am concerned about how it affects the Bill.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman suffers from the fact that he was not present in the Committee. I have provided him with a copy of our proceedings there, and I am sure that he is now catching up with his homework.
Having listened to the arguments put forward in Committee by the Government, we have now brought forward an Amendment which we think the Government ought to be able to accept. That is why I referred to the Committee stage, during which we put forward an Amendment restricted to the area of the Highlands and Islands. Because of the arguments advanced in Committee by the Minister of State and after considering the matter carefully, we thought that the area should be extended to the adjacent areas, which the Minister said were the places where the Board might wish to use these powers. It is for this reason that we have paragraphs (a) and (b) in the Amendment.
We are not wedded to the form of words. The right hon. Gentleman has available to him facilities in the way of drafting expertise, and so on, which are not available to us. If he thinks that the wording can be improved, we shall not object to the Amendment being altered in that respect. The Minister has not put forward a case, or tabled an Amendment, for giving the Board power to purchase land in Fife, or the Borders, to help the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles) rose—

Mr. Campbell: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will have the opportunity to make his own speech in due course.
The Minister of State and the Government have not shown that there is any reason for these powers to be extended to the Borders. We have therefore tried to help the Government by putting down an Amendment to provide what the hon. Gentleman said was required in the way of powers to acquire land by the Board. The Amendment is not the same as the Amendment which we tabled in Committee upstairs. It tries to meet what the Minister of State said was required, and I had hoped that we had done this successfully.

Mr. Ross: I am waiting for an explanation of it.

Mr. Campbell: I am sure that the Minister of State knows what I mean.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is very difficult to decide what is the purpose of the Amendment. I think that we have now reached the stage, which we reached on several occasions upstairs, when we ought to have a clear statement from the Opposition about where they stand on certain basic issues.
I agree that we cannot deal with Clause 4 without thinking of Clause 6. I do not want to get out of order. To do what we envisage in Clause 6, we need the land that can be provided by Clause 4, because that Clause deals basically with the acquisition and disposal of land. What the Opposition have lamentably failed to tell Scotland is how they propose to deal with the situations which were posed by


my hon. Friend the Minister of State, by myself, and by other of my hon. Friends in the Committee upstairs. We have not heard what they propose to do in respect of an area which is bereft of employment agencies, into which no private enterprise industry is prepared to go, and from which people are migrating because they are unable to find work. What the Opposition have to tell us is whether they are prepared to give the Board power to secure land to set up employment agencies which will employ people and restore the economy of those areas—something which should have been done long ago.

Mr. Noble: I think that the hon. Gentleman is thinking about a different Clause in some other part of the Bill. What we are trying to do is to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State and of the Board in respect of acquiring land outside the Highlands and their adjacent areas and setting businesses there which will be of no benefit to the Highlands. I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: That may be the intention of the Amendment, but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when his hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said that we could not deal with this matter without remembering what was in Clause 6. We know what powers are contained in that. Clause; we need land before we can use them. The hon. Gentleman has skated round the Amendment. It may have been put down to try to secure the position which the right hon. Gentleman wants in regard to land outwith the seven crofter counties, but the fact is that it has a much wider implication.
The hon. Gentleman says that he is talking about giving more powers to the Board and less to the Secretary of State, but on reading the Clause one sees that the motive power is expected to come from the Board, and the Secretary of State will then O.K. the proposals, Subsection (1) says:
For the purpose of any of their functions under this Act the Board may
do certain things. I take it that the ideas will flow from the Board, which will collect its information from its agencies and from consultations with the

local authorities concerned and other bodies in the area.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood what I was saying. I tried to make it clear—and this is the statement of policy for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked—that we accepted the need to give power to acquire land, including compulsory acquisition, within the Highland area, within the area for which the Board is responsible, and also within adjacent areas. We are not arguing about that.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate that, and I shall say very little more about it. Does the hon. Gentleman object to the Board compulsorily acquiring land in order to provide employment?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have objections to Clause 6. I think that I would be out of order if I were to pursue the matter now, but I think that the Amendments on the Notice Paper are indicative of our objection to that Clause.

Mr. Manuel: I shall not proceed with that any further. But it would appear that the basic reason for the Clause is to acquire land and to dispose of land. The rubric of the Clause is "Acquisition and Disposal of Land." The Amendment is drafted in order to fit in. I am aware of the fears of hon. Members opposite. I know that they have been trying to stimulate interest in the Highlands area and that they have had some success with some lairds and landowners. They are talking as though the Secretary of State were going to take over vast areas merely for the sake of taking them over. That is quite untrue, as has been explained on many occasions. But we shall not allow the Highlands to die as hon. Members opposite did for the past 13 years.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the hon. Member explain where he wants the Board to have power to acquire land? What is the area he is talking about? He does not seem to have grasped the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: The areas that I am keen about are the areas in the seven crofter counties. I know the views of hon. Members opposite quite well. Would the


hon. Member allow the Board to operate the Spey Valley scheme, or would he oppose it?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I made it clear that because Badenoch lies within the Highland area we would not object to the Board having powers of compulsory purchase in that area, but if it tried to acquire land in Fife, which is well over 100 miles away, we would think it was quite unnecessary.

Mr. Manuel: I shall not detain the Committee for long. The intention of the Amendment is quite clear. Despite what has been said about this question of the acquisition and disposal of land causing great resentment in the Highland areas, I know that even certain landowners think that the powers are necessary, and are prepared to go the whole hog in order to bring work into these areas.

Mr. Russell Johnston: We should get back to the Amendment—

Mr. Manuel: Do you know what it means?

Mr. Johnston: I shall try to explain what I think it means. It is an Amendment with which I have great sympathy. In Committee the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) moved an Amendment which had a comparable objective, and I voted against it, because it was not properly worded and did not do what was really intended.

Mr. G. Campbell: It was restricted to the Highland area. This one goes further, to the adjacent areas.

Mr. Johnston: Looking at the Bill as a relatively rational individual, I would have thought that the words in Clause 1(2)
The area within … which the functions of the Board shall be exercised
would also cover any powers embodied in subsequent Clauses. This would seem to be logical. Consequently, I feel that the Amendment is covered by the provisions of Clause 1(2). However, in a discussion which we had in Committee on an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn it appeared that according to legal definition these powers in reality cover the whole of

Scotland and not merely the area defined in Clause 1(2).
If I may quote the much quoted Minister of State, in Committee he said
The Act is limited … to Scotland, but the hon. Member is correct in his interpretation of this Clause in saying it is not limited wholly and solely to the seven crofting counties. The reason is that we visualise it might be necessary in connection with works to be carried out on the borders of the seven crofting counties to do something over those borders for which it might be necessary to acquire the land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 27th April, 1965, c. 453]
That argument was used to justify what appears to be the legal position. I do not pretend to understand why it is that the powers contained in the Clause apparently apply to the whole of Scotland, but if this is the case I would have thought that the Amendment was reasonable and sensible, in that it restores what we all thought was the original situation, namely, that the powers contained in Clause 4 were covered by Clause 1(2). According to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn that is precisely the sort of situation that he wishes to assure. If that is the object I do not think that the Minister can reasonably oppose it.

Mr. Willis: Perhaps I may intervene at this point. This debate covers a great deal of the ground that was covered in Committee. As the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said, its effect would be to limit the Board's powers to the acquisition of land, whether by purchase, feu, lease, or excambion, in the areas defined as the Highlands and Islands under the provisions of Clause 1(2), and to any land adjacent thereto which the Board may reasonably require. Clearly, most of the land required by the Board will be in the Highland area. This is not a question of the main operations of the Board being outside the Highland area. Its main operations will be in the Highland area.
I suggested in Committee that there might be times when the Board would require to obtain land outside that area for the purpose of carrying out its functions within the seven crofting counties. To that extent we thought it necessary for it to have the power to acquire land outside the Highland area. During our discussions I gave a number of examples where it might be necessary to acquire


a piece of land just over the boundary in order to complete a job just within the border of the Highlands. There are other cases. These areas would be adjacent; in fact, they would be contiguous.
I am not sure what the definition of "adjacent" in the Amendment is. The areas need not be contiguous, as I understand it, but can be separated. But how far away can they be? What does the word mean—two miles, five miles, 10 miles, 15 miles, or 20 miles?

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks is the meaning of the word "proximity" in Clause 1(2)?

Mr. Ross: Not on this Amendment.

Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend says, "Not on this Amendment". It means "nearness", but we are not discussing that definition at present. What we are discussing is the Amendment. We are not asking questions about Clause 1(2). We have a right to ask what "adjacent" means.
We have heard much about the Spey Valley scheme. It is always being quoted, and it has now become so familiar that every hon. Member who was on the Committee knows what we are talking about. Let us assume that the Board tackled the Spey Valley drainage scheme and for that purpose it became necessary to acquire land and carry out works 30 or 40 miles away in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Would that be "adjacent"?

Mr. G. Campbell: Mr. G. Campbell indicated assent.

Mr. Willis: If so, is 50 miles away adjacent? When does the hon. Gentleman stop? I think that he is agreeable to allow his constituency to be "adjacent" if it is to the benefit of his constituency.

Mr. Campbell: In that scheme any works carried out would be much closer to the nearest boundary of a crofting county. It might be 30 miles from Badenoch, where the work was being carried out. It might not be in Morayshire or Banffshire. It would probably be 15 miles away from the boundary. We have said that we are not wedded to the wording of sub-paragraph (b).

However, as the Government use the word "proximity" for "near", we are willing to use "near" in place of "adjacent". The purpose is to meet the position which the hon. Gentleman has described.

Mr. Ross: Why not have the Bill as it is?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be in order for the Board to have power to acquire land in Moray or Nairn. That might be 30 or 40 miles away. I asked what limit the hon. Gentleman puts on the distance if a piece of land is required to fulfil the Board's functions in the seven crofting counties.

Mr. G. Campbell: I can explain. That is the reason for the wording:
which the Board reasonably require.
If it is something which is clearly directly connected with some operation within the designated area of the Highlands, it is very unlikely to be much of a distance away.

Mr. Willis: But the Clause says this. There is no reason for the hon. Member's Amendment to say it. The opening words of the Clause are:
For the purpose of any of their functions.
The functions are defined in Clause 1. There is no need for the Amendment.
I asked the hon. Gentleman to what distance he was prepared to go to allow the Board to acquire land to fulfil its function. He pointed out that he has put certain words in his Amendment. I suggest that they are already covered by the opening words of the Clause. But the hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. If it is helping the Board to carry out its functions in relation to the seven crofting counties to have an information centre in the central belt of Scotland—in Edinburgh or Glasgow—is he prepared to let the Board have the land for that?

Mr. Campbell: As has been explained, and as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) so quickly pointed out, the purpose is to bring Clause 4 into line with Clause 1 that we have drafted the Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman wants to use the words "within the proximity of" instead of "adjacent to" we are happy about that. We do


not think that powers like these are needed for the sort of situation which the hon. Gentleman has described, for an office in Edinburgh. An office could be provided in a very different way.

Mr. Willis: The purpose of the Amendment is that the powers conferred on the Board by virtue of this Clause shall be applied to any land described or designated in terms of Clause 1(2) and any land adjacent thereto. But this Clause deals with land acquired by agreement, whether by way of purchase, feu or lease or whether by acquisition by agreement or compulsory acquisition. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman is not going to let the Board do anything.

Mr. G. Campbell: Nonsense.

Mr. Willis: That is what the hon. Gentleman's Amendment means.

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Campbell indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The words are:
The powers conferred on the Board by virtue of this section shall apply".
This is why we are not disposed to accept the Amendment. We feel that efforts made by the Board to fulfil its functions in the area might well require it to purchase a piece of land, to acquire a piece of land by agreement or even to acquire compulsorily a small piece of land outside the Highland area in order to enable particular work to be carried out. For instance, it might be a small reservoir for the purpose of an industrial undertaking, and it might be 30 to 40 miles away. It is important for industries to have a proper water supply. The right hon. Gentleman opposite should know this from the case of the pulp mill at Corpach, because that was one of the determining factors in deciding that it should be where it is.
Suppose the Board wanted to do this, but could not. The hon. Gentleman would not give it the power to do it. We believe that the Board ought to have powers to do these things. The fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman and several others—not a very large number, I am glad to say—are quite unrelated to the function of the Government in relation to the Board. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk as though this was a roundabout way of nationalising not only the Highlands, but a larger part of Scotland still. There is no such intention.
This is not a Bill for the purpose of nationalising the Highlands or any other large part of Scotland. It seeks to promote the economic and social development of the Highlands. It gives the Board the powers that we consider to be necessary to enable it to do that job. We consider that for the purpose of its duty it might find it necessary to acquire a piece of land by feu, lease, acquisition by agreement or compulsory acquisition, and, if so, we feel that it should be given the powers to do so.
There are two safeguards which I would point out to the hon. Gentleman and to the Liberal Party. First, the Board cannot acquire land unless it is related to the purpose of any of its functions. That is the first limitation. The second limitation or control over the activities of the Board is that the action has to be approved by the Secretary of State. The responsibility of the Secretary of State in this respect is another guarantee that the powers will not be abused. I emphasise that we have these guarantees against the abuse of powers given to the Board in the Clause, and we believe that these safeguards will ensure that the Board will act as we expect it to do.
The hon. Gentleman said that it would mean that a Left-wing Government could take land in the south of Scotland. If there were a Left-wing Government with a big majority in the House and it wanted land in the south of Scotland, it would take it without a Highlands and Islands Development Act. Therefore, do not let hon. Members say that this is an excuse or means for a Government to do that.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman consider a case in which the Board acquires land compulsorily against the wishes of a local authority? Why should not the local authority acquire the land, which could then be purchased by the Board? Why do we need all this procedure?

Mr. Willis: The answer is that the Secretary of State would decide. The Board would not be able to acquire the land, if it was wanted by the local authority, without the authority of the Secretary of State. That is the safeguard and that is the short answer. These powers are limited by the words of the


Clause. There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these powers will not be abused. We feel that they are necessary if the Board is to be equipped to do the job which we ask and expect it to do. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not criticising those powers. What I wish to make clear, and what the hon. Gentleman in Committee promised to make clear, was whether these powers in Clause 4 cover the whole of Scotland or whether his advice is that they are confined to the area defined in Clause 1(2). If it is the latter, I am quite happy, but it is because I am afraid that it is not that I support the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I made this clear in Committee. These powers to acquire land apply to land outside the Highland area, but it has to be related to the functions of the Board and the Board's functions are related to the Highland area.

Mr. Wylie: All this began as a result of what the Minister of State said in Committee. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has quoted one passage from the speech of the Minister of State when he said:
The act is limited by Clause 18(2) to Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman is correct in his interpretation of this Clause in saying it is not limited wholly and solely to the seven crofting counties. The reason is that we visualise it might be necessary in connection with works to be carried out on the borders of the seven crofting counties to do something over those borders for which it might be necessary to acquire the land.
That is fair enough.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that
at the moment, as I have said, our ideas in connection with the Board are that we would like it to have the powers to obtain land by lease, by feu, by excambion—I must use that word—or by compulsory acquisition just outside the area of the seven crofting counties in order to enable the Board to carry out schemes approved by the Secretary of State and, where it is found necessary, to acquire the land neighbouring that particular scheme in order to carry it out successfully."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 27th April, 1965; c. 453–5.]
It now looks as though, on further thought, the Government had other ideas as to the purposes for which they require

those powers. If what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee was what was required, the Amendment, with all its undoubted imperfections—because we do not have the guidance of Parliamentary draftsmen—meets those requirements in toto.
The Amendment is an attempt to clarify the area over which the statutory powers in relation to land can be exercised. It clarifies those powers as being in relation to the area specified in the opening provisions of the Bill or any area subsequently designated under the powers contained in those opening provisions and, secondly,
any land adjacent thereto which the Board reasonably require for the provision of services thereto or for the purpose of any of their functions under this Act.
I thought, obviously wrongly, that we were going out of our way to accommodate the Minister in what he was asking. In Committee, I for one stated that I fully understood the need for that kind of requirement and I agreed that provision of that nature would be necessary.

Mr. Manuel: We now understand who drafted the Amendment. I am puzzled about this. Clause 1(2) defines the area in which the Board can carry out any of its functions. That enables cases to be dealt with on the borders of the counties—fringe areas, areas of proximity or whatever we call them. We know what we mean. The Amendment goes further in paragraph (b), where, after referring to Clause 1(2), it goes on to state:
any land adjacent thereto which the Board reasonably require".
Is that land adjacent to the land that is already adjacent to the crofter area? How much further can one go in this way? Obviously, paragraph (b) of the Amendment does not mean the land adjacent to a crofting county, but land adjacent to land which is adjacent to a crofting county.

Mr. Wylie: I do not entirely follow that line of thought. Clause 1 defines the area as the counties of Argyll, Caithness, and so on. Then there is a reserve power to extend that area, because subsection (2) goes on to say:
and such other areas in Scotland as, having regard to their character and proximity to


the said counties, the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, from time to time designate.
That means that with the passage of time, on cause shown, the Secretary of State can extend the area within which this legislation applies.
The object of the Amendment relates to the acquisition of land—and one should avoid confusion between carrying on a business under Clause 6 and the acquisition of land, because they are not by any means the same thing; there are powers under Clause 6 which could be exercised without any problem of the acquisition of land arising. We are dealing in Clause 4 with the acquisition and use of land. The aim of our Amendment is that not only should the Board's power to acquire land compulsorily, if need be, be exercised within the Highland area—either the original Highland area or what it becomes as a result of subsequent Statutory Instruments, or any adjacent land thereto which is reasonably required—

Mr. Willis: What does "adjacent" mean?

Mr. Wylie: There is nothing unusual about the use of the word "adjacent". This expression came from the New Towns Act, 1946. One does not dream these things up. Section 4 of the New Towns Act uses the words:

"(a) any land within the area designated …
(b) any land adjacent to that area".

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I have looked up the meaning of "adjacent". According to the Oxford Dictionary, it means lying near to, adjoining or bordering.

Mr. Wylie: The Oxford Dictionary is not necessarily conclusive in a court of law. I did not appreciate that the Minister of State would have this difficulty; it was all kinds of other difficulties which, I understood, would arise. I am sure that if one looked up Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, almost certainly it would be found that the word "adjacent" in some statutory connection or other has been the subject of legal definition. The Minister of State cannot make too much of the question of what is meant by "adjacent".

Mr. David Steel: Is it the effect of the Amendment to add to the powers of the Board? If what we have been told is true, and while, under subsection (2), areas in proximity or adjacent areas must be approved by the Secretary of State, according to the Amendment the Board is being given this further blanket power.

Mr. Wylie: There may be circumstances in which it is necessary to go beyond the border, beyond the line, because it would be ludicrous to frustrate an enterprise substantially within the area just because the Board had no powers to acquire land outside the area.
The question is: where do we draw the line? That is the whole question. The kind of situation which the hon. Gentleman has been suggesting was certainly not suggested in Committee, and I wonder whether the Government have really thought out what kind of thing this Board is to do. Is it necessary, when we define an area in which the powers are to be exercised, to say, in addition to that, that in order to enable it to fulfil its functions this Board must have power to acquire land by compulsion anywhere in Scotland? It may be a question of degree. We think that that is going unnecessarily far; that it is quite unnecessary; and that the same result can be achieved by an Amendment like the one we have moved, with the Board exercising its functions within the designated area or within an area adjacent thereto in circumstances which require the exercise of those powers.
It is not open to the hon. Gentleman to say, "Oh, we could not carry on an advertising agency or we could not carry on anything else unless we can acquire land." That is not so, because at the moment there are powers in Clause 6, quite distinct from those in Clause 4, to acquire by agreement and carry on business. That is not affected by the powers to acquire land. In the following Clause—and this is very apposite to the question of publicity which one hon. Member raised—in Clause 7(b) there is power to which no exception has been taken,
to promote or assist in the promotion of publicity
and, in Clause 7(c),
to engage in such other activity as the Board may deem expedient".


Where, by Statute, powers of that nature are given there is implied by law consequential power to take the necessary steps to do it. Those facilities are quite distinct from the whole question of the acquisition and use of land under Clause 4.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the limitations imposed on the Board—

Mr. A. Woodburn: I am rather interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He may be right, but there is just the possibility that he could be wrong, and if the Amendment proves to be quite frustrating, one which prevents the Board from doing something which really ought to be done, would it not be rather ridiculous that, to get that remedied, we should have to have another Act of Parliament, instead of having flexibility and common sense to deal with this, rather than try to tie the hands of the Board behind its back?

Mr. Wylie: I do not think that it is a question of common sense. It is a question of reading the Bill and seeing what facilities are available. The Board has facilities to carry on business or carry on publicity organisations or "engage in such other activity," and so on. There seems to have been confusion of thought between that type of activity and the acquisition and use of land, which is specially the feature dealt with in Clause 4. This Clause relates to the acquisition and use and disposal of land.
The question is: over what area are these powers to be exercised?

Mr. Manuel: That is the whole point.

Mr. Wylie: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), with his acute mind, has pointed it out exactly. He has caught up at last. That is the whole point.
The Government say, "We must extend these powers over the whole of Scotland, even although"—

Mr. Manuel: They do not.

Mr. Wylie: Of course they say that. They say they must have the powers of compulsory purchase which they can exercise anywhere in Scotland. These are powers, however, relating to an area designated in Clause 1 and we say that we can achieve the same result as the Govern-

ment want by an Amendment similar to this.
This Amendment was taken out of the New Towns Act. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the use of the word "adjacent", by all means let us use another word, or incorporate a definition of it in the Interpretation Clause. There are all kinds of ways in which the parliamentary draftsman can clear up doubts of the kind the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the use of the word "adjacent".
6.45 p.m.
Finally, just one other point on something the Minister of State said. He said that nobody has got any reason to worry about the powers because if anybody thinks the Board has too much power he can go to the Secretary of State. That, of course, begs the whole question, because our criticism of this whole set-up is that the Secretary of State and the Board are far too close, and this arises very sharply on the question of compulsory purchase, because although, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1947, the Board, it is quite true, would have to apply to the Secretary of State to have a compulsory purchase order confirmed, of course, as was pointed out in Committee, so close are the Board and the Secretary of State, and so tight the directions which the Secretary of State can give to the Board, that what is happening is that the Secretary of State and the Board, particularly on the question of compulsory purchase, are one and the same thing. Therefore, the Secretary of State is, in that event, deciding a semi-judicial issue in a matter to which he himself is a party.
We all recognise in this day and age that statutory bodies have to be given wide powers. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. What we are saying, as, I think, we are entitled to say, is that it is the duty of this House to examine these powers before it grants them, and to be satisfied that there is a social and economic need for these powers before it grants them, and nothing has been said, on Second Reading, or in Committee, or today, which justifies, in my submission, refusing the kind of Amendment we have put forward in all good faith at this stage.

Mr. Ross: We have had quite a long debate on this Amendment, and very


much longer than I had anticipated, particularly in view of the progress which we had made. I want to pay this tribute to the Opposition, because when we started on this Bill they were so frightened about the powers in the Bill that I am perfectly sure they were prepared to vote against the whole lot of them.
Now we have the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell)—and this should be understood by everyone—saying that the Opposition are now prepared to support the Government in respect of the powers they need under this Clause for the purchase of land either by agreement or by compulsion. When, in Committee, we looked at this from the point of view of the needs of the Board, they went one step further, and they said, "We even think it might be necessary to acquire land outside the area designated in Clause J."
I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have made such a song and dance about this. It is a question of definition: how far do we go?

Mr. Wylie: The right hon. Gentleman goes the whole way.

Mr. Ross: I do not go the whole way. I am trying seriously to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument and Amendment. He limits the exercise of this power to get land whether by purchase. lease, or any other way, outside the area. It is limited by the words "adjacent to". This is the only point, I think, between us. I admit right away that, for the greater part of the work of this Board, the land which it will require will be within the designated area. We have said that there may be occasions when it may need land just outside of it. To get that land which is outside it may be absolutely essential to apply these powers of acquisition, compulsory or otherwise, if, without that land, the Board were to find itself hampered in any essential project.
The question arises whether the word "adjacent" meets all the possible cases. It does not. I can remember arguments on these very words on a Bill quite recently. I think that it was the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Act, of celebrated memory. It might be that some of the works connected with these projects might be a considerable distance away and

even over the Border. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said that the wording of the Amendment came from the New Towns Act, 1946. This was from Section 4, dealing with land use. Paragraph (a) dealt with any land within the area designated. Paragraph (b) dealt with any land adjacent to that area required for purposes connected with a development of a new town, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention paragraph (c) which refers to:
Any land, whether adjacent to that area or not …

Mr. Wylie: Let us have those words in this Clause, then.

Mr. Ross: All right, there may be essential requirements relating to projects in the Highland areas which would require land outside and which could not be covered by the word "adjacent". I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that we are not seeking in this way to nationalise the whole of the land of Scotland. Unless he gets rid of his original fears about the Bill he will not get our intentions right.

Mr. Wylie: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept paragraph (c) from the New Towns Act since he has quoted it and it is perfectly acceptable for this Amendment?

Mr. Ross: We would be discussing something which is not on the Notice Paper, and on Report we must limit our discussions to what is on the Paper.
It might be desirable for the Board to have offices in different parts of Scotland which could not be construed as in any way adjacent. It might require a market stall or a publicity exhibition centre. We would not be able to acquire that land by purchase, feu, lease or excambi. Hon. Members opposite are making far too heavy weather of this. The Secretary of State has to give authority and the hon. and learned Gentleman's fears are quite unjustified. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a step forward but it does not meet the whole point and I think that he now sees that the word "adjacent" might be limiting. I assure him that we shall look at the matter further but I hope that he will not hold up the proceedings of the House on a fairly narrow point in which there is a


question of distrust of motive and of intention rather than any real substance.
I hope that the House will see its way to resist the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 103.

Division No. 186.]
AYES
[6.54 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
More, Jasper


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Errington, Sir Eric
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Eyre, Reginald
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, Sir John
Peyton, John


Baker, W. H. K.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Pym, Francis


Balniel, Lord
Gardner, Edward
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Scott-Hopkins, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhew, Victor
Shepherd, William


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Stodart, Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Bingham, R. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Webster, David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Whitelaw, William


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Campbell, Gordon
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Wise, A. R.


Corfield, F. V.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McLaren, Martin
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Woodnutt, Mark


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McMaster, Stanley
Wylie, N. R.


Curran, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Younger, Hn. George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Doughty, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eden, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Mr. MacArthur and




Mr. Dudley Smith.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Hazell, Bert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Bessell, Peter
Hooson, H. E.
Pentland, Norman


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Rankin, John


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Howie, W.
Redhead, Edward


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Buchanan, Richard
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Chapman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Short, Rt.Hn.E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Ennals, David
McCann, J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Floud, Bernard
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Taverne, Dick


Garrow, A.
MacMillan, Malcolm
Thomas, George (Cardiff[...] W.)


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Tomney, Frank


Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Hale, Leslie
Molloy, William
Warbey, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Albert
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Fitch.

Clause 5.—(ERECTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROVISION OF SERVICES, ETC.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 26, at the end to insert "or other operations".
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we could take with this Amendment the next one, No. 17, in page 4, line 10, after "works", to insert "or other operations".
This Amendment is merely consequential on Amendment No. 16. It is being moved to implement an undertaking given in Committee to consider an addition to the Clause to ensure that the Board's powers under it will extend to such operations as reclamation and regeneration of moorland, and shelter belt planting.
My hon. Friends the Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) moved, in Committee, a number of Amendments specifying operations which, they thought, should be mentioned in the Bill. I pointed out that I had no doubt that these powers were in the hands of the Board, but there was a general expression of opinion by the Committee that it would be useful to spell them out rather more clearly in the Bill. In reply to that, I pointed out that if we started to destroy the generality of the Bill, we should be throwing into doubt some of the powers which we did not mention.
We have, however, looked at the matter again, as a result of which, we believe that the words "or other operations" will meet all the various operations which were mentioned during the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Noble: I do not think that the House need have much worry about accepting these words. The Minister of State said that there was a demand for something to be spelt out, and, with the usual skill of the draftsman of the Scottish Office, they have added three words which cover everything which anyone might have thought about, is thinking about or will think about. I have no objection to the width of this.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I should like to thank my hon. Friend very cordially for having accepted the suggestions we made to him and for having

greatly improved on the wording. We did not think of these Amendments as perfect, but we thought quite a lot of the ideas behind them, if I may say so without undue immodesty. Among the things which I hope the Board will be greatly encouraged to regard as its legitimate field of operation is what the Minister of State mentioned specifically—regional regeneration schemes.
One of the reasons that hon. Members on both sides, including myself, discussed regional reseeding and regeneration of moorlands in relation to shelter belt planning was that the two go together and that these operations are complementary, necessarily so. The attempt to carry out regional regeneration without having the power at the same time to provide shelter extensively as one proceeds into the regional moorland schemes would, of course, be defeated. If one provides the shelter as one goes along, one has increasing success. Therefore, these things have to be worked together as complementary undertakings.
I hope very much that the Board will take the hint from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from the Minister in expressing the intention of the Government in this respect and be adventurous and enterprising in proceeding with this scheme. I was also extremely grateful to hon. Members opposite for the help and encouragement which they gave during discussion of these Amendments.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I have some trepidation about entering into what is a Scottish discussion. The words which the Secretary of State has tried to add to these words, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has said, cover almost anything in the book. This could, in the light of Clause 6, apply to land or property acquired by the Board in any part of the United Kingdom. If this is not so, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will give the assurance that these words do not apply to this.
It seems to me that Clause 5(2) could refer to the matters mentioned in Clause 6 and, therefore, will apply to land which the Board could acquire in any part of the United Kingdom—London, Cornwall, or anywhere else. I want to be quite


clear that this is so, in relation also to the operations carried out by the Board which are referred to in Clause 4.
I understand the Scottish point that I have no reason to intervene on Scottish matters. However, in regard to England and Wales, this is a point of some relevance and I should like to know what the intentions are.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Has the hon. Member no objection to the Board exercising its powers in relation to the acquisition and use of land in any part of Scotland?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I said that I did not wish to intervene in an argument concerning what was necessary to be done in Scotland. My hon. Friends who have been dealing with this matter in Standing Committee and today are quite competent to deal with that. I am touching on the matters only as they affect the other parts of the United Kingdom like Wales. I am trying to get from the Secretary of State or from his hon. Friend the Minister of State whether or not this applies to other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The reason I asked the first question was to try to find out what the hon. Gentleman thought about the question. In fact, he voted against the very thing to which he now says he has no objection. Which is right?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of admitting that I was here and listened to the whole debate. He should also have pointed out that I was voting against the curtailment of the powers within Scotland. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I do not wish to comment on the powers as they will apply in Scotland, but on how they will apply outside the Highland area. Will they apply to other parts of the United Kingdom and, if so, what sort of things will be done, what operations will come under "or other operations" and what activities will the Board carry out under the provision?

Mr. Rankin: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have under his control an excellent land drainage plant section, the members of which he will find indispensable in the

task of reclaiming and draining land. Will such people be placed at the disposal of the Board to enable it to carry out this important work?

Mr. Willis: The Board is empowered to acquire land by lease, feu and by what other terms might be used in England, for any of its functions under Clause 1. In other words, the acquiring of land must be related to the activities of the Board in the Highland counties. We do not visualise that the Board will want to do very much in England. It could, under the Clause, build, say, an information office. It might wish to advertise industrial sites. That is the only sort of activity we envisage.
My right hon. Friend referred to a number of items, some of which were referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party, for which the Board might need to acquire land, offices and so on, outside the Highland area. To a lesser extent, compared with its Highland activities, the Board might wish to conduct such operations in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Woodburn: I take it that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State refers to land he really means buildings. I have in mind the possibility of the Board wishing to have a place in London in which to sell the products of, say, the Island home industries—the Scotch House idea. For such a specialist idea the Board might need to obtain land for buildings.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I press the Minister of State to deal with this matter further. He appears to be saying that the Board might wish to acquire property in London, Cardiff or elsewhere for carrying out an advertising campaign or some other activity. The words "or other operations" seem to go so wide as to cover virtually anything. Why have the Government chosen these words and is it not possible to find a more restrictive phrase for this operation?

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suggested that "or other operations" might cover the purchase of a shop or other building in England. I suppose that that would be a reasonable extension of one of the Board's operations, but would it


be covered by the phrase "or other operations"? In any case, what is meant by "operations"'? This aspect of the Bill worries me, as does the Government's vagueness about the whole plan which they are supposed to have for the Highlands.
For a considerable time in opposition hon. Gentlemen opposite boasted of the great plan that they had for the Highlands. We have had several months of them in office, with the Second Reading, Committee stage and now the Report stage of this Measure. Whenever we ask them to tell us about their plans we merely get vague answers and we have no clear idea of what, if anything, they have in mind. I am coming to the conclusion that this is more and more a piece of window dressing than anything else. If the Government have a clear idea of what the Board will do under the words "or other operations" they should tell us; and when we ask probing questions they should make the position clear and not leave us in a state of uncertainty.

Mr. Willis: I will try to explain the sort of activities we have in mind in relation to the phrase "or other operations". It could apply to buildings or other structures required for the Board's operations. Clearly, the Board would only carry out operations elsewhere in the United Kingdom if they were in line with its main functions in the Highlands and Islands. It might be an information centre for the marketing of a Highland commodity. It might be any such activity, but it must be related to the carrying out of its functions. I regret that I cannot be more specific, but those are the sort of things we envisage.
The words "or other operations" are included to cover the activities which we discussed at great length in Committee, including reseeding, afforestation, reclamation and similar schemes. Although the Board would be able to acquire land in England, such acquisition would have to be related to its functions, otherwise it could not obtain the land in the first place.

Mr. Wylie: We are in danger of getting into a muddle over what, at the outset, seemed to be a perfectly harmless Amendment. Most of the examples which the Minister of State gave—except afforestation, reseeding and so on—could not be

covered by the term we are discussing because other terms are specified in other provisions of the Bill. According to the normal rules of interpretation, the terms which are contained in one Clause for certain activities do not embrace the activities which come under the terms of a different Clause.
It is obvious that the Government really have in mind such schemes as afforestation, reseeding and the rest. Those are not the sort of activities that the Board would wish to carry out in England because under no circumstances could they be said to be related to the Board's functions in the Highland area. This all underlines the significance of the earlier Amendment and that it is nonsense to leave the Board with power to do things which are outwith the Highland area and when it could not conceivably use such powers properly in relation to its activities in the Highland area.
We are discussing a Board which will have power to acquire land in England, although goodness knows why it would want to do that. It will not need to do it for any public service, for the powers governing that are contained in Clause 7, or for any business, because the powers governing that are in Clause 6. How will the Board exercise its powers to acquire land in England? The answer is that, in practice, it will never do so. It does not need the power in the first place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 10, after "works", insert "or other operations".—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 6.—(CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 21, after "acquire", to insert:
by agreement and carry on".

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment Amendment No. 20, in page 4, line 21, after "acquire", insert "by agreement".

Mr. Ross: This Amendment implements an undertaking given in Committee to consider the insertion of words for clarification in relation to the acquisition by the Board. It puts beyond doubt that the Board is given power to acquire only


by agreement and not by compulsion. The Opposition appreciated that the original wording conveyed no power of compulsory acquisition, but hon. Members opposite rather feared that the absence of the words, "by agreement", might give the Board such compulsory power.
I hope that the Opposition will be satisfied that we have covered that point. We have also included the words, "and carry on", which is a point of drafting to enable the Board to do what the Committee desired that it should be able to do.

Mr. G. Campbell: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted what we proposed in Committee and moving an Amendment similar to the one which we had on the Notice Paper. The Government explained in Committee that it was the intention that acquisition under Clause 6 should be by agreement. We thought that this should be written into the Bill to make it absolutely clear. Therefore, we accept this Amendment, but that does not mean that we like the Clause.
We also had an assurance in Committee that the Government regarded the power to acquire by agreement under this Clause as a reserve power to deal with a special case or two which might arise. The Minister of State cited the case of the Brora coalmine, where the Highland Fund was able to run the business for a short time to fill a gap. That was an exceptional kind of case mentioned by the Minister of State. That, again, we accepted as some assurance that the Clause was to be only in reserve to meet a special case, but the Clause and this acquisition by agreement provides very wide powers which we do not think are necessary.
I again take up a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) about the area to which the power extends. Our understanding from what was said in Committee was that the powers under Clause 6 would extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether that is the case or not. I agree that this is not compulsory acquisition, but we must get the matter clear. Where these

powers are concerned it is our business in the House of Commons to know the extent of the powers which are being given to a Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be our business, but I do not follow how the adoption or negativing of this Amendment would affect the matter in any way.

Mr. Campbell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I shall not stray further on that, I wish to make clear that in accepting this improvement of the Clause and the actual wording I wanted confirmation as to whether the power extended to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Russell Johnston: We have been very interested in clarity and particularly in legal exactitude, yet this Amendment would insert after the word "acquired" the words "by agreement". As was correctly said by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), a similar Amendment was moved in Committee. What did the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) say about it when he moved it? He said:
I am not pressing the Amendment. As I said, I am satisfied with the wording of the Clause as it stands.
What did the Minister say in reply? He said:
I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I can give him a categorical assurance that the Amendment is unnecessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 4th May, 1965; c. 559.]
Yet now the Government move this Amendment. This appears to be very much out of line with what was said by the Minister:
I have always advocated in the past that we should never clutter up Bills with words which are unnecessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 1st April, 1965; c. 179.]

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has said that this Amendment is to clarify Clause 6. I appreciate that we cannot discuss the principle of the Clause, and it is not my intention to do so, but this Amendment relates to one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. Although we discussed it for three-and-a-half hours it is surprising that this was the only discussion during which a Count was called and now there are only nine hon. Members on the Government side present.
I wish to refer to the effect of the Amendment on the actual position of undertakings under Clause 6 so far as tax concerns them. If the effect of the Amendment is to limit the ability of the Board to set up undertakings of this sort, it might in some way restrict the powers of the Board and the taxation of such undertakings is relevant because if there is a larger or smaller number the tax position is affected. I wish to ask what is the tax position of such an undertaking.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Great admirer of the hon. Member's ingenuity as I am, this exceeds anything I can compass. His question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: If the Amendment does anything at all—and I think that we are right in assuming that the Government would not have introduced it unless it did something—the effect would be to make it easier or more difficult for the Board to bring in things of this sort. Whether the number of undertakings is or is not reduced is a relevant consideration to the question of what the tax should be. The answer to that would have an effect in deciding whether these undertakings should pay Corporation Tax of not.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Member is going back to the same point. He must not, because it does not arise.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Under this Clause, I understand the Board can acquire by agreement land in the United Kingdom, which, of course, means in England and Wales as well as in Scotland. I should like to find whether this is so. Would the Minister indicate the type or kind of business or undertaking which will be restricted—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Minister of State to make rather peculiar noises, but the Amendment says, "by agreement"—

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What it does, apparently, is to limit the method of acquisition to acquisition by agreement. It in no way affects the area in which the acquisition could take place. It cannot on the face of it, as I understand it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is so, but it affects the type of business or undertaking which by agreement can be acquired.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, it does not change that. It only changes the method of acquisition.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This is the point I am trying to make. Does the Secretary of State think that he will be able to acquire by agreement the type and kind of business which, presumably, he expects the Board to wish to acquire in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ross: There is not very much to answer, but in fairness to hon. Members who have spoken I should say that we are carrying out a promise given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee. He said that he would do this for the purposes of clarity. I begin to wonder whether it is advisable to put in unnecessary words. The Amendment makes perfectly clear something about which certain fears were expressed. That is all it does.
In answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), this in no way affects businesses. It affects only the way in which businesses can be acquired. I shall not acquire any business at all. It is the Board which will do that. Before it can do it, under the Clause it must have my approval and that of the Treasury.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 22, after "agent" to insert:
, or themselves carry on as agent,".
The Amendment is designed to make it clear that the Board will be able to carry on a business as an agent without necessarily acquiring it. We visualise that it might do this while new arrangements were being made about a company. Once again to quote the case of Brora, I do not think that the Highland Fund acquired the Brora coalmine, but it became responsible for running it until suitable arrangements were made whereby the mine could be taken over by the people in it. This is the kind of case which we envisage might be covered by the Amendment. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that the Board has this power.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am anxious about some of the implications of this small Clause. The Amendment gives the Board power to carry on a business as an agent. As an agent, presumably the Board will receive fees. The Board might receive fees for its operations as an agent not only in the crofter counties. It might, as the Secretary of State said, operate in this capacity elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Board might set up stores. Presumably it would be operating as an agent in this capacity.
What concerns me is this. Presumably the Board would make a profit as an agent from its agency fees. From what we learned last night, it appears that these fees might be exempt from Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax. In other words, in addition to the wide powers which have caused many of us considerable concern and which enable the Board to act in competition with other agencies and operators in the Highlands and, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, outside the Highlands, the Board would also be given a tax incentive to achieve this purpose.
This is a dangerous position. It puts the Board in a highly preferential position vis-à-vis other operators and other agents, not only in the Highlands but perhaps outside the Highlands. In the Highlands I cannot imagine anything which is more likely to discourage industrial development, discourage the setting up of new firms and discourage existing firms than giving the Board these exaggerated privileges. We are at least entitled to an assurance that Ministers will make it their business to ensure that the Board in its capacity as an agent does not get the benefit of being excluded from the operation of Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax.

Mr. Rankin: I have a little difficulty with the language employed. I can understand the function of the Board setting up and carrying on
directly or through an agent, any business or undertaking",
and so on. It is appointing an agent. That is clear. The Amendment provides that the Board can
carry on, directly or through an agent, or themselves carry on as an agent".
Agent of whom? Do I take it that the Board will employ itself as an agent of

the Board? I do not know of any other interpretation than this. I ask my right hon. Friend to make clear what is meant by the Board themselves carrying on as agent.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has shown greater skill than I did in getting in the point which is worrying us so greatly. It is not wrong for me to repeat that this is a matter which is causing a great deal of concern and on which we want nothing more than clarification. My hon. Friend has put forward his point of view as to what should be done. The least we can ask for is information.
If the words "or themselves carry on as agent" are added, this may well involve a slightly different tax position than if the Board was operating through an agent. In view of this difference, we are entitled to a clear explanation of precisely what is the tax position if there are all these alternatives. The Board might operate quite independently, as was envisaged by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. On the other hand, it might work through an agent. It might act as agent. Precisely what is the position?
Even if the Secretary of State gives us a clear explanation as to what the position is now, this might well have no relevance at the time when the Bill becomes law. Earlier this morning, the Minister without Portfolio was asked over a period of two hours to explain what the position was. At no time did he give us any explanation. He merely said that he was sympathetic and would look into it. The position might well arise whereby the Board, operating through its undertakings, is free of Corporation Tax and free of Capital Gains Tax. On the other hand, if it operates through an agent it might not enjoy this freedom from taxation. We are entitled to a clarification of the position as it is now.
Even then, it is very dangerous for us to consider any Amendment along these lines, because any explanation the Secretary of State may give us now, however accurate it may be, might well be out of date by the time we reach the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Willis: By leave of the House, may I speak again? The questions asked by


the hon. Members for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) are more appropriate to the Finance Bill than to this Bill, more particularly because that Bill is now on its way through the House. The time to start asking questions about how the tax position of the Board is affected is on the Finance Bill, not now. I can give hon. Members this little piece of information, that, as I understand, the Board will be in the same position as any other corporate body.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What is that in this context?

Mr. Willis: Hon. Members sat up all last night to discuss these very matters. It does not say much for their alertness during the night if they did not discover what the position of a corporate body was. It would, however, be out of order for me to deal with that.
The great anxieties expressed by the two hon. Members are to some extent safeguarded by the first two lines of the Clause:
The Board may, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury …
I can hardly visualise the Treasury supporting something which would be a means of avoiding taxation, as they have suggested.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Willis: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and he really ought to let me proceed. I put it to him seriously that this matter ought to be discussed on the Finance Bill, not here. We are discussing whether the Board should have powers to act as an agent. I cited the case of the Brora coal mine, an example of it being a good thing for a certain project in the Highlands to be taken over or at least be run by somebody else until satisfactory arrangements could be made for its future, a number of jobs being saved in that way. I can visualise other industries in the Highlands in connection with which it might be useful to do much the same. A business may get into difficulties because it is not being efficiently run.
The Board, in the interests of employment there and believing that the industry could be made successful, but with no desire to acquire it, may obtain the agreement of the owner and say,

"We will come in and manage it for a certain number of months, making it more efficient". In that way, an important business could be kept going. I can visualise that happening, and I could give other examples of the way in which it would be valuable. This is why we consider that the Board should have these powers.
The whole question of industry in the Highlands is desperately important, and it is an exceedingly difficult problem to tackle. Any little thing we can do in the House of Commons by way of giving necessary powers to enable the Board to tackle it, including power to carry on a business as agents, is, in our view, very valuable and helpful for the Highland area.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne rose—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—

Mr. Speaker: Either hon. Gentleman requires leave to speak again.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave—

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. Speaker: Noises indicate that the hon. Gentleman has not leave.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave—

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(GRANTS AND LOANS.)

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment selected is No. 22, and I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee—I do not know—to discuss with it Amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 2, at the end to insert:
Provided always that any financial assistance by way of grant or loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, in respect of any one enterprise in excess of £50,000 shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury; and that their approvals of the grants and loans made under this subsection in any year shall not exceed £2 million except with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the previous Clause, I had the impression that the Minister of State did not answer the point which I and my hon. Friend the Member


for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) had raised because he had not understood it, and I wanted to explain it. In the circumstances—

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to explain it, but, in the context, supposed inadequacy of the answer does not give rise to a point of order.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who is about to move his Amendment, but, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. It arises on a matter of procedure and it is, therefore, appropriate as a point of order to put to you.
We have been informed—unofficially, it is true—that it is the Prime Minister's intention to make to the House a statement of extreme importance and, I understand, of urgency because, unless the statement is made in the House, there will be the likelihood—I do not put it too high—or the possibility that the statement may appear in the Press. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the House always regards a statement made outside instead of in the House as being inopportune and inadvisable.
In the circumstances, I wonder whether you would make clear that, at some appropriate moment, without interrupting the proceedings unduly, it will be permissible for such a statement to be made.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been considering this with the greatest anxiety because it could not be supposed that I had any wish to prevent the House hearing the Prime Minister at the earliest possible moment. I do not find in our procedure any power to interrupt business during the currency of an Order of the Day, so the earliest moment at which I can arrange it is when this particular Order of the Day comes to an end.
Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman how closely I am bound. There was an occasion on 30th October, 1956, when the then Government were anxious to tell the House that hostilities had broken out between Israel and Egypt. It so happens that the Member who objected to that procedure then

being adopted was the right hon. Gentleman himself, and my predecessor was obliged to accede to his submission, expressing great regret that there was no machinery for getting out of the difficulty. I do the same, but I am left as firmly fixed.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, circumstances have changed since then. Perhaps the situation is more urgent. But would it not be possible for one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker: No, only between Orders of the Day. That is the trouble, and that is how the difficulty arises. It is open to the Government of the day to move the Adjournment between Orders of the Day, but not during one. I regret the difficulty, but I cannot help.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible at any time for a Minister of the Crown to move, "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned"?

Mr. Speaker: That gives rise to a dilatory Motion and the subject matter which can then be discussed is restricted by the rules relating to a dilatory Motion. I do not know what the statement is about, but I do not suppose it to be about Highland development. [Laughter.] I am not trying to be funny. That is what creates the difficulty here. I should be extremely glad to help the House if I possibly could, but I cannot find any way of doing it.

Mr. Noble: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the second "the" in line 40.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House to take Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 together. At the end of his last speech, the Minister of State said that any little thing we can do or power we can give to the Board to create the conditions we want in the Highlands should be done or given. I regard these two Amendments as of great importance if we are really to give to the—

Mr. Shinwell: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I wonder whether, in


view of what has been said on the point of order, the Opposition would cooperate, as this is a most important matter. Perhaps the points which they are raising are of minor importance and might be dealt with very expeditiously.

Mr. Noble: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for suggesting that the points which we are dealing with are of minor importance. Of course, in the great world context they may well be. However, to myself and many of my colleagues who have an interest in the Highlands, they are fairly important. If, through the usual channels, a message can be given to us about the import of the Prime Minister's statement, we will certainly try to co-operate.
As the Secretary of State for Scotland has been kind enough to say once or twice, we have done our very best throughout the passage of the Bill to speed up its consideration. However, I hope that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will forgive me if, on this rather important point, as I regard it, I continue with my speech, because it is difficult for me to obtain advice while I am on my feet.
The purpose behind these Amendments is perfectly clear. It is to give to the Highland Development Board the initiative to spend a certain amount of money in any year on any individual enterprise in pursuance of the objects which I think all hon. Members hope it will be able to carry out.
I am not wedded to the words of the Amendment or to the actual amount, though I should not regard it as very satisfactory if the Government were to say that they accepted the principle behind the Amendment but wanted to limit the sums concerned to a trifling amount. [Interruption.] It is a little difficult to carry on this debate with general conversation going on in the House. I wonder whether you can help us, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I hope that hon. Members will carry on their conversations quietly, and, perhaps, outside the Chamber.

Mr. Noble: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is not a question of my voice having gone, but some of us have been here rather a long time, as

indeed you have, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not want to have to shout at the top of my voice to still the hubbub.
It is clear from the discussion which we had earlier today that it is the universal desire of the House—and I certainly include the Liberal Party in this—that we should get on the Board young men perhaps wanting to make their reputation out of their work on the Board. It was suggested, although not too firmly, that the sort of people we wanted to get were "worth" between £8,000 and £12,000 a year. If that is so, the Government must very seriously consider whether it is possible—and I know that this is an unusual step—to give a board constituted of this type of person and with these sorts of powers the special discretion which would automatically follow if it were able to spend fairly considerable sums without having to go back each time to the Treasury or to the Secretary of State for approval.
One of the problems to which we have referred once or twice this afternoon is that we do not yet have any very clear ideas of what type of projects the Board will undertake. Earlier, the Minister of State talked about things like access roads. Then we heard about a water scheme. Today, we have had one or two new ideas about land reclamation, forestry and, perhaps, some information offices dotted about the country. But to those of us who live in the Highlands none of these things suggests that the Board has any very large and useful function to perform. I am sure that the Board and the Government can find many better things than these to do. If so, I hope that the Board will have power to spend its own money.
The Secretary of State may say—and I understand his point—that he cannot accept the Amendment because it is very difficult to get the Treasury to allow a comparatively independent board, although one of my complaints is that the Board is not independent enough to have the power to spend money without being tightly controlled by the State. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the conversation which is going on could be subdued, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have already asked hon. Members if they will carry on their conversation more quietly


or outside the Chamber, so that we may hear the debate.

Mr. Noble: On a point of order. Do you not think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when the Patronage Secretary wants to carry on a conversation he might take his hon. Friends outside to do it? This sort of thing makes it very difficult for the House to conduct its business. I have already raised this point twice.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I made a request to all hon. Members—not only to the Patronage Secretary—that conversation should be carried on quietly so that the proceedings are not disturbed. Otherwise, conversations should take place outside the Chamber.

Mr. Noble: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I apologise to hon. Members who may well be buzzing with rumours which have not reached me because I am on my feet. However, as you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would make it a great deal easier, in particular, if the senior members of the Government would not conduct their conversations in public.

Mr. Charles Grey: Hurry up.

Mr. Noble: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to continue with my speech for three or four hours, I am prepared to do it. I have been extremely careful in speaking for a very short time. Because something is afoot of which I have no knowledge—and I suspect that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has no knowledge of it—to make those sorts of remarks, particularly as the hon. Gentleman is a Whip, is entirely uncalled for. I am coming to the end of what I wanted to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I will not come to an end if hon. Members opposite do not even extend a little courtesy to the Member who has the Floor of the House.
The Secretary of State would, I know, have a certain amount of difficulty perhaps in accepting the Amendment if this were the first time that he had seen it. But this is a point which I made on Second Reading and which we have discussed quite often and at some length in Committee with fairly general approval. As has been said by the Minis-

ter of State when it suited him, the setting up of this Board is itself an unusual step. It is perhaps a unique experiment. If we are to make a success of something which is a unique experiment we must be prepared to take some actions—this, I think, is one—which signify to the country that this is an unusual step and that we are prepared to give the Board unusual powers.
If we do that, we will take a considerable step forward in making it easier for the Secretary of State to get the right people to serve on the Board and to be able to use their intelligence, powers and initiative in the right way.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: I rise to support the Amendment on much the same grounds as the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble). I will be brief, but the essential point is that if we have a board, of high quality men who do this unusual, new and vitally important job which covers the revitalisation of an area which is the heart of Scotland, then these men must have responsibility put upon them and they certainly cannot get less than is put upon the Highland Fund at the moment, which has the ability to lend a certain amount of money without reference to the Secretary of State.
The figure proposed is reasonable. It is not a very large enterprise which absorbs £50,000. Any larger sum would need the approval of the Secretary of State and, I presume, the Treasury. But we have no doubt that, if the Board is to play a vital part, it cannot go running to the Secretary of State every time it wants to initiate a very small but viable enterprise.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I, too, support the Amendment. The matter was discussed at some length in Committee when I moved an Amendment to Clause 3. Hon. Members who were on that Committee will recollect that the Minister of State's argument against the Amendment was that the Board's freedom of action would be extended by a series of category sanctions. However, he did say that the idea behind the Amendment was attractive.
Quite apart from the argument about the degree of responsibility which any men of quality employed by the Board


ought to have, this proposal would give the Board a degree of freedom of action that is necessary. Some of our fears about the Board are due to the fact that all proposals both general and specific have to be referred back to the Secretary of State and this must lead to delay in taking action in specific cases. This is a reasonable fear, because we in the Highlands have long experience of delay and postponement and we now want to create some sort of mechanism whereby the Board can have a certain freedom of action similar, although on a larger sale, to that already enjoyed by the Highland Fund.
For these reasons, I suggest to the Secretary of State that he would be pleasing the whole House if he not necessarily accepted the exact wording of the Amendment but agreed to something similar.
Finally, purely on a point of order, Sir Samuel—and I do not know if it is proper for me to do so—may I say that this present situation places us in some difficulty. We are dealing with a question which we all regard as important and it is wrong that we should be penalised by the procedural shortcomings of Parliament.

Mr. Ross: I, too, feel strongly about what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has so succinctly expressed as the shortcomings of Parliament in interfering with a very important Scottish debate. I can assure my hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have not been wasting time with this Bill. We have been dealing with it in relation to its importance, and very quickly indeed.
These two Amendments are important. I fully appreciate the reason for them. It is to give a certain measure of freedom to the Board so that it will not have to go constantly to the Secretary of State in respect of the assistance it wishes to give to various firms.
It is not the words of the Amendment which worry me but the figures. Once figures are put into a Bill it takes another Bill to change them. That is a serious point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already given an assurance that it is our intention with the Board to work out a scheme that

will give it latitude—a greater latitude than is at present enjoyed by the Highland Fund, which gives loans up to £7,500 without reference back.
The Amendment would also put a ceiling on the aggregate in any one year. The figure—£2 million—looks all very well, but it is a maximum. I think that we do far better to bear in mind that we want the Board to flourish, to exercise its powers for a considerable number of years and to spend very much larger sums than that. It is dangerous, if a little pessimistic, to put in a figure.

Mr. Noble: I appreciate his point, and, indeed, in an Amendment we moved in Committee we included a much more optimistic figure—about £10 million. But that was greeted with so much apprehension over the question of whether it was realistic that, on this occasion, we thought we should come down to something which would perhaps be thought more realistic. I am not keen on the figures in the Amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman can find some way of meeting the real problem of being able to tell the Board that it can spend so much money without consulting him, then I will support him. We are at one on this.

Mr. Ross: I agree that we are one on this. But the danger is in tying oneself to figures which look all right today but in a few years' time may look nonsensical. That is why we have deliberately not put figures in. However, it is our intention to give the Board freedom in respect of particular projects instead of having it run backwards and forwards to Edinburgh with frantic messages to the Secretary of State. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not resisting his Amendment in any petty spirit of pure opposition.

Mr. G. Campbell: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Amendments are important. I am sorry that his main objection is to the figures. We included them as a result of discussion in Committee as being what we think at the moment to be within the bounds of possibility and as a reasonable match against the kind of project which the Board would be likely to be dealing with and which it could then have discretion to approve.
As my right hon. Friend said, if the Government would like to put in their own figures we would have no objection at all. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the situation is likely to change and circumstances are likely to be different in the future. It would therefore be a great help if we included a provision whereby these figures could be changed from time to time. The total limit could be increased or diminished if the financial situation because very straitened.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to reject the Amendment simply on the ground that the figures are not acceptable and that he cannot find any others to put in their place. Once the new Board comes into existence, people in Scotland, and certainly in the Highland areas, will be looking at the amount of money which is to be made available, and they will be disappointed when they find that the Secretary is worried by limits of the kind that we have suggested here. If the Board is going to be able to do anything at all worth while, it ought to be permitted to sanction a project to the amount of the limit that we have mentioned here.
The right hon. Gentleman has not put forward any real objections to the Amendment. As my right hon. Friend explained, we think it is important that the Board itself should be given much more discretion in the area for which it is responsible, though we recognise that for major projects the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State and the Treasury should have the final say, and we have made provision for that.
To sum up, we are not wedded to these figures, but we think that the principle is extremely important, and we are disappointed that the Government do not seem able to come any way towards meeting us. The comments made by the Minister of State during the Committee stage were not sufficient to meet us, and we would have liked to have had something along the lines of our proposal written into the Bill.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I apologise if I have to inconvenience my hon. Friends, but this happens to be Government business of considerable importance. We have before us what may be the only real Socialist Measure of this Parliamen-

tary Session and I hope that my hon. Friends will consider it for another hour or so with the same attention and respect as that with which we considered it for seventeen mornings in Committee upstairs when we laboured to try to improve the Bill and to make it as nearly perfect a pattern and model as possible for other areas of the United Kingdom.
The intention has been to get the Bill through tonight at a reasonable hour. We have no responsibility for the rules of the House and the difficulties created by them. If hon. Members cannot control the procedure of our own House, I can only say that it is time that something was done about it.
This is an extremely important Measure, based as it is to quite an extent on a sound Socialist pattern, and I would regret it very much if this Bill were now to become victim of a sort of electoral auction here. I do not want to think that that is the fundamental purpose of the Amendment or of the speeches which have been made in support of it by either speaker opposite. Surely nobody wants to start with an auctioneering bid of, say, £25,000. Somebody else is certain then to bid £50,000. I could come in and bid £100,000. But, surely, that is not the way in which the Measure of such importance ought to be considered. No Government or party has ever before attempted to introduce a Measure of this kind and scope. It was left to this Government to bring in these proposals although hon. Gentlemen opposite had plenty of opportunities for doing what we are trying to do. Now they are trying to claim the credit by proxy which they signally failed to earn.
We must bring a sense of responsibility to bear even amid this uproar on the matters under discussion. It would be very easy for me to go to my constituency and say that the Labour Government have brought in a Bill which the Liberal Party in its days of power and the Tory Party in recent years did not attempt to introduce. I could say that without anybody being able to contradict it. It would be easier for me than for any hon. Member to talk about figures of £100,000 and upward. But to do so would be highly irresponsible, and would mean that one was seeking cheap publicity at the expense of getting through a Measure of great importance, and one which neither of the parties opposite ever


had the guts to tackle when they had ample opportunity.
I have a lot of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's declared aims. I should like to see the Board given a large global sum which it could spend without having to come back to the Treasury too often, but I am not going to specify figures. I remember that the Leader of the Liberal Party brought in a very useful little Measure with all-party backing to raise the ceiling below which a local authority could spend money for the provision of marine works without a Provisional Order. His proposal was to increase the ceiling from, I think, £5,000 to £25,000, and it was discussed by the Highland Panel of which I was chairman, and of which the right hon. Gentleman was also then a member. But what does £25,000 amount to today. In my constituency I have a scheme—till recently costing £80,000—which it is now estimated will cost £100,000, it is simply not realistic to talk in permanent legislation about a ceiling of £25,000, or sums to spend of £50,000 or what-have-it.
When talking about putting figures in the Bill, we are in fact talking about putting in figures which will almost certainly in practice become maxima. I should like a firm assurance from my right hon. Friend that as circumstances change he will treat this Board, which is the first of its kind to be charged with duties of this nature, with the greatest possible generosity. I hope that he will treat it in the spirit in which the Government have brought forward and sponsor this Measure. It represents the most determined attempt ever made by legislation to organise the development of the Highlands and Islands on a comprehensive basis, and I hope that it will not be damaged at this advanced stage or partly wrecked by Amendments which have no reality because they want to write in figures which will have no real meaning within about five years. I hope that as time goes by an increasingly generous portion of our national resources will be provided by way not of so-called doles, bur of investment in these areas which can in turn help to increase the wealth of the whole country, and help in their own measure to raise the standards of our people.
The Highlands and Islands have a great deal to offer the economy of the country. But the region has suffered from a lack of accumulated capital. Nevertheless, I do not think that we can tackle the problem by bidding on these Amendments in terms of £5,000 or £25,000, or £50,000; I do not think that the Amendment as a reality in a few years' time is worth the paper on which it is written. Hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Tory Government had thirteen years during which they could have brought in a Measure of this kind and many opportunities in the past. Had they done so, they would have had all the support they wanted, both from this side of the House and indeed, from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Brewis: Why does the hon. Gentleman keep on saying that in five years' time money may mean nothing?

Mr. MacMillan: I said that these figures will be valueless in real terms in a few years' time. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. That is why I used the illustration of the well-meaning Measure introduced by the Leader of the Liberal Party. The figure of £25,000 was an ambitious one at that time, but in the context of modern marine or other engineering works such a sum has a fraction of that value now. I give that illustration because it is typical of the sort even of minor local problems that we have to face in the Highlands and Islands.
I want to see as generous a global sum as possible made annually available—or provided over some years—for free spending by the Board, without the necessity for too much or too frequent reference back to the Secretary of State or to the Treasury. But the Government have the responsibility for getting the Bill on a sound basis on to the Statute Book, and they have then the great responsibility for getting the best possible Board appointed. I am against putting figures in the Bill because they tend to become unreal and also maxima. I end as I began by saying I hope that this will not turn into a kind of electoral auction, with parties trying to outbid each other with money figures and mere propaganda.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Mr. George Y. Mackie rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will need the leave of the House to speak again.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10.—(POWERS OF ENTRY.)

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 36, to leave out from "unless" to the end of line 39 and insert:
seven days' notice in writing has been given to the occupier".
The object of the Amendment is simple. The Clause deals with entry on to land. This is accepted by the Liberal Party as being reasonable. The question at issue is: under what circumstances and with what sort of warning ought it to take place? Clearly, where a Clause gives power of entry on to land, even when it is occupied for residential purposes, it is a considerable interference with personal liberty, and it is reasonable that some safeguards should be created. The safeguards are written in in subsection (2), which provides that a person who is authorised to enter upon land shall not demand admission as of right unless 48 hours' notice, or, in the case of land occupied for residential purposes, seven days' notice, is given.
The Amendment substitutes for 48 hours' notice the period of seven days' notice in writing, so that this period applies in both cases. We think that this is a reasonable request to make, and one which should not be refused by the Government. First, what is the difference between land which is occupied and land which is occupied for residential purposes? Why is it necessary to make a distinction? We could very well put the two things together. Why does a representative of the Board seek to gain entry on to land? He seeks to do so in order to survey it, or to search a little, or to make borings, under the terms of subsection (4), and I would have thought that none of these things would normally be embarked upon unless at least a week's prior thought had been given to the exercise.
It is clear, therefore, that this Amendment in no way hampers the activities of the Board. It merely seeks to safeguard the right of the individual. In the Bill as originally drafted the period was not 48 hours, but 24 hours—until it was

amended in Committee. It seems to me intolerable that on a Tuesday somebody should be warned that on the Thursday morning his land will be entered upon freely.
This is not an expensive Amendment. It can reasonably be accepted. I have not moved it in any partisan spirit. Incidentally, I regret the tone recently adopted by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). I am capable of answering that sort of attack, if he so desires it. It was quite uncalled for. I ask the Government to give the Amendment reasonable consideration.

Mr. Willis: This is similar to the Amendment which the hon. Member moved in Committee, and I am afraid that my answer will also be very similar to that which was given then. As the hon. Member says, first, the period of notice was 24 hours. That is quite usual. It is the normal period of notice in respect of entry on to land. It was the period provided for in the Act of 1955; the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948; the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947; the Local Employment Act, 1960; and the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956. It is quite normal in legislation to have a period of notice of 24 hours.
However, the Government very magnanimously agreed to accept an Amendment moved by the official Opposition which increased the notice from 24 to 48 hours. We were prepared to come and go a bit on this. But we cannot see that we ought to go any further. We are providing for a period of notice which is longer than in most Acts, and if we went much further than 48 hours it might lead to a certain amount of inconvenience in the administration of the Board. An officer who was visiting a certain area might want to enter upon a piece of land and not be able to do so.
For instance, while he was in the Shetlands an inspector from Inverness might get a telephone call from Inverness asking him to enter upon a certain piece of land. He might be able to give the person concerned two days' notice while he was there, and then be able to get on with the job. I do not want to press the point too much, because I realise that individual rights are more important than the convenience of officials, but it would be


rather inconvenient for the Board's officials if this period of notice was incorporated in the Bill.
We must also remember that in most cases the notice that a person wished to enter upon one's land would not come as a surprise. Such a notice would arise in the course of the preparation of a scheme, and the Board would consult people or bodies in order to discuss the preparation of the scheme before it would require to make an entry in order to obtain a more accurate assessment of the situation. Entry might be required in respect of the implementation of a scheme, but in that case the scheme would already be known. Therefore, as we visualise the situation, in most cases the requirement to enter upon land would come about as a result of discussions. We feel that most landowners would not object to being given 48 hours' notice. There may be some, but in most cases the person would be getting more than 48 hours' notice. Having already doubled the period, we think we ought to leave it at that. I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Member will feel inclined not to press the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: The Minister of State said that 48 hours' notice was the usual period given in other Acts. But that does not mean that the period is right in this Measure. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) that this is far too short notice. Seven days would be much more reasonable. This is a Board with enormous powers, and I am concerned about the rights of the individual. The individual ought not to be kicked around in this way and given such short notice.
The Minister of State is normally quite reasonable and does things for individuals, and I urge him to think of liberty and not put all these powers and rights into the hands of the Board. We must protect the individual, and to that end I commend the Amendment.

Mr. Hector Monro: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). What is important is the convenience of the landowner, tenant or occupier. It is always extremely provocative if one gets

a notice out of the blue saying that a surveyor wants to come and look at one's property. It immediately suggests the most frightful possibilities, perhaps that one is to have an atomic power station built among one's crops. It is the initial shock which is critical. As the Minister of State said, later on, when perhaps operations are to begin, one knows the worst, or the best, because what is proposed may be beneficial to one.
Seven days is not an unreasonable period of notice for a first entry. I wish that we could have had as a compromise such words as "seven days' notice or by agreement." If one objected, one would then have seven days in which to steel one's courage for what was coming. On the other hand, if one accepted entry by the Board one could accept notice of less than seven days—entry the next day perhaps. I feel that this is something on which the Government might have met the Opposition.
Even when one is keen to have a visit, such as by an inspector coming to mark one's calves, with the prospect of one getting a subsidy, one likes to have as long notice as possible, even a week, to prepare the beasts and get ready. When one is to have an unwanted visit, 48 hours is a very short time indeed. I urge the Minister to extend the period.

Mr. Younger: It would appear from the Bill that the warning of intended entry will not be in writing anyway. The man has to produce evidence of his authority, but the actual 48 hours' notice does not have to be in writing. I wonder what the Secretary of State thinks about that. Perhaps in these circumstances one either has everybody quite happy about the procedure, in which case it does not matter whether the notice is seven days, 48 hours or whatever it is, for it will all be done by agreement, or there may be some difficulty, or likelihood of difficulty, and if that is the case, what use will it be to be able to say that one has given notice to the owner verbally when one has no evidence of it? These are just the circumstances in which written evidence would be necessary if the person was being difficult.
I urge the Minister to think again about the 48-hour period of notice. I agree that in the vast majority of cases that is ample notice, but I suggest that, particularly in


the Highlands, where there are great distances and people's lives are rather more difficult to run, and they have to go away from home for longer periods to do simple things that many of us can do in half an hour across the street, it is only too likely that if the 48-hour period is written into the Bill in some cases notice will be served only to find that the actual owner is not there. The notice may then be served on, perhaps, a servant, baffled by the rights and wrongs of the matter, who feels that he must say "yes", and then when the real owner returns there may be a situation of great annoyance—quite unreasonably, I admit—which may cause embarrassment.
I do not think that the Minister made a completely convincing case for the need for 48 hours' notice. Anxious as we all are that the Board shall work quickly and effectively, I should have thought that in practically every circumstance the giving of seven days' notice would present no difficulty to the Board. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

Mr. Willis: I have forgotten the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). I will come back to it presently. Meanwhile, I will deal with the observations of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). The hon. Member pointed out the difficulties that might arise owing to the long distances involved and the fact that people might be away from home. I remind him, however, that the notice is only 24 hours in the case of the Crofters Act, where, equally, the same conditions as the hon. Member has mentioned apply.
As far as I know, there has been no considerable volume of complaint about the operation of the Crofters Act. I cannot, therefore, see that we have suddenly reached a position when, owing to the great number of complaints, we should do something more. We are, in fact, giving twice the length of notice that is given in the Crofters Act.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) was, of course, fighting for liberty. I remind him, however, that I did not hear his voice quite as much when the Crofters Act was being passed in 1955, or when the Local Employment Act was being

passed in 1960. We did not hear then his loud protest about this sort of violation or terrible thing that we were doing concerning individual liberty. I am not complaining that the hon. Member does it now, but he is not very consistent. What was done in those two Acts was to provide for 24 hours' notice and not 48 hours.
I come now to the hon. Member for Dumfries, who suggested that we might clearly do as hon. Members opposite have suggested to meet the wishes of the other side of the House. In Committee we accepted an Amendment from the Opposition to provide for 48 hours' notice. It is not quite fair that the official Opposition having moved an Amendment to increase the time from 24 to 48 hours and we having agreed to accept it and to put it in the Bill, hon. Members opposite should then demand that we increase the time again. One does not do that sort of thing in the House of Commons.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 20, to leave out "unoccupied".
I am assuming an Amendment that was originally put down by the Opposition and I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it might be convenient to take, at the same time, Amendment No. 26, in line 20, at end insert:
, being either unoccupied premises, or premises of which the occupier is temporarily absent,".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: It was, I believe, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) who drew attention to the weakness of subsection (5), that we were obliging somebody to secure unoccupied premises and to leave them as he had found them after carrying out his business in the premises, that it would be unfair if the unoccupation was due to the fact that the occupier or the owner was absent temporarily and that it was only right that something should be done in a case like that and that we should put an obligation upon the person who was entering to ensure that he left these premises, too, in the way he found them.
For this reason, we adopted the Amendment of the official Opposition,


but we felt that it contained an element of the ludicrous. It would have meant tint although the owner was there in occupied premises the person who entered by law would have to lock up. We therefore decided to add to the Opposition Amendment
being either unoccupied premises, or premises of which the occupier is temporarily absent.
This meets the point that was made in Committee and it does so better than the original Opposition Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Even if it just takes only 30 seconds I should like to express my appreciation at the way the Government have adopted the suggestion, and extended it a little bit. I think that it does usefully meet the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 20, at end insert:
, being either unoccupied premises, or premises of which the occupier is temporarily absent,".—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 11.—(POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.)

Mr. G.. Campbell: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:

(1) The Board may by notice served on the owner or occupier of any land in the Highlands and Islands require him to furnish them with such information as may be specified in the notice with regard to the acreage, the rent and the tenure of the land and with regard to such other matters relating to the ownership or the occupation of the land as the Board may reasonably require for the execution of their functions under this Act.
(2) The Board may by notice served on the owner or occupier of any land in the Highlands and Islands or as any person carrying on a business or undertaking therein require him to furnish them with such information as may be specified in the notice with regard to the land, business or undertaking as the Board may reasonably require for the execution of their functions under section 8 of this Act in relation to the land, business or undertaking.
(3) Any expense incurred by any owner or occupier or person carrying on a business or undertaking in complying with the foregoing provision of this section shall be a valid charge against the Board in so far as such expense exceeds the sum of £5.

We believe that subsection (1) of this Clause is highly objectionable. It is fairly short, but the meaning of it, as was confirmed in Committee, is that the

Board, and, therefore, the Government, can require information to be provided by any of the persons concerned in the area defined as the Highlands and Islands about virtually any subject.

Mr. Willis: Oh, no.

Mr. Campbell: Well, if the hon. Gentleman will tell us what the limitation is I shall be very glad indeed, because when I asked about this in Committee I was under the impression from the reply which I received that there virtually was not a limit. The Board itself can deal with such an enormous variety of subjects that tying the limit to the functions of the Board, as the subsection does, certainly has the effect of opening an extremely wide field—even if, by the nods the Minister of State is giving, it appears that there may be some limit.
The objectionable part of it is that confidential information can be required about business and financial affairs whether a person or firm concerned is likely to benefit financially from any project of the Board, or not, and whether the person or firm is interested in so benefiting, or not. When we pointed this out in Committee the Minister of State suggested that instead of destructively criticising the Clause we ought ourselves to produce some alternative wording, and that challenge we have accepted, and that is why there is this substantial Amendment containing three new subsections. I will explain exactly what we mean and intend by them. Again I will say that if our drafting is in any way faulty we would immediately accept that, provided that the intention of our subsections is clearly met.
In the first subsection in the Amendment we have attempted to give the Board the power to obtain information of the kind which it is normally recognised it is entirely appropriate for any person or firm to give to a Government body or statutory body of this kind. Therefore, this is drafted in order to enable the Board to obtain information of what may be described as of the ordinary kind.
I shall not read the whole of the subsection out, as I think somebody expected me to do on an earlier Amendment which I was moving, because there it is on the Paper, in rather technical


language, for all hon. and right hon. Members to see. I have explained in very simple language what it intends to carry out.
8.45 p.m.
In subsection (2) of the Amendment we provide for the Board to obtain further information which may be of a more confidential nature but which has to be sought by the Board in those cases where the provider of the information stands to benefit financially from a project of the Board. This meets the argument which the Minister of State put forward in Committee, and which we quite understood, that in existing legislation, such as legislation covering the White Fish Authority and others there is provision for an authority to obtain information which may cover the financial affairs of a firm or a person. But that is because the person or firm stands to benefit financially from subsidies, grants or loans under that same legislation. This we thoroughly recognise and we say that in these circumstances it is reasonable that the Board, and through the Board the Government, should be able to seek that kind of information.
Again, I will not read subsection (2). I see that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) who criticised me earlier for not reading out each Amendment is now again with us. I will not read this subsection because the hon. Member has it in front of him on the Order Paper and he will see from the wording what we intend the subsection to achieve, that is to obtain information from this second category of person who is likely to benefit or to seek to benefit financially from the operation of the Clause. We have gone out of our way to draft this to meet the argument which the Minister of State put forward.
In subsection (3) we have dealt with a point which we also raised in Committee about the expense which can be incurred, particularly in an area like the Highlands, in providing certain information. We have thought it reasonable that if the cost exceeds a certain figure—and we have put down £5 but we are not tied to that—the Board should accept responsibility for that expenditure. There is a problem here which one would not necessarily meet in other parts of

the country. It can be an inordinately expensive business to take measurements in the Highlands which it might not have been necessary to take before. A survey of the property might never have been done in the way required by the Board and if the information asked for was to be supplied it might be that an expensive survey would have to be carried out. Not only would there be compensation to the owner or occupier who has to provide the information, and that we think to be reasonable, but this would provide a built-in safeguard to ensure that the Board would not unwittingly ask for information which was not really necessary. The Board would weigh the need for the information against the estimated cost of obtaining it. It would not run into unnecessary expenditure to obtain information which was not really essential to its requirements. We believe that we have greatly assisted the Government in doing this drafting for them on the lines which they suggested in the Committee, although, as I have pointed out, we did not expect that the wording would be entirely right, even though we have the benefit of legal advice to help us—very good legal advice.
The ordinary individual living in the Highlands who might wish to receive a grant or loan or financial assistance from the Board so as to be able to do a job entirely independently does not have to suffer an inquisition into his finance or, if it is a business, his confidential trade affairs, which is a reasonable protection of the freedom of the individual. That is what subsection (1) does. However, in cases where it is reasonable to ask for more information than that in return for the prospect of financial benefits, subsection (2) will meet that case.
We believe, therefore, that these new subsections, replacing the original subsection (1), are a great improvement on the Clause. We hope that the Minister of State has already recognised this in studying these Amendments before coming here and that he has not arrived with his mind set against them. We are trying to help him in this. I think that opposition was expressed on all sides about this. As I remember it, it was not a party matter in the Committee. We had support from the Liberal Party and from some speakers, I seem to remember, from the Government back benches as


well. They were also worried about quite unnecessary powers in subsection (1). Therefore, I hope that the Government will appreciate that we have been of assistance not only to them, but, it appears to the whole House in this.

Mr. Willis: At least we are grateful to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and his hon. Friends for having put down on paper their ideas about this Clause. We did not get them in Committee. We had a kind of general opposition to the Clause. Now, we have something more specific and we see the kind of information which hon. Gentlemen opposite feel ought to be permissible in a Clause of this kind. I am afraid we still cannot accept the limitations imposed by the Amendment. The first subsection in the Amendment, as it says, deals with the question of land, but, of course, it is limited solely to acreage, rent, tenure, ownership, or occupation.
The Board might reasonably want information about the land use, but it would not be possible to obtain it under this subsection. It might want information about various aspects of land use and the soil itself. That could not be obtained under this subsection. It might, in special circumstances, require information about viability. It could not obtain it under this subsection. There are perfectly legitimate things which the Board might require to know for the purpose of its functions, which it would be prohibited from discovering by this proposed subsection.
The second subsection deals with industry and business undertakings, and it is limited by its reference to Clause 8. Subsection (2) of the Amendment states that the Board may ask for
… such information as may be specified in the notice with regard to the land, business or undertaking as the Board may reasonably require for the execution of their functions under section 8 of this Act …".
That would be done with respect to the granting of a loan or grant. It is about the last case where one would experience much difficulty in getting the information because if it were not supplied the loan would not be granted. I suggest that that would place a great limitation on the sort of information the

Board might require to enable it to carry out its functions.
The Board might require information about such things as the number of workers employed, how far they must travel to and from work and the age groups employed. These are all important matters if the Board is to undertake work for the promotion of the economic and social development of the area. In extending tourism, for example, the Board might need to know the number of tourists, how many of them are on tours, how many stay for what length of time and similar information. There is nothing outrageous in this. If the Board is to undertake the promotion of tourism it will require a considerable amount of information of this character. This shows that the powers which we seek in the Bill are necessary if the Board is to carry out its functions properly.
Subsection (3) of the Amendment deals with expenses and, as I pointed out in Committee, the Board has the power to meet such expenses. Under Clause 9(1,d), the Board will have the power to offset such expenses that are necessary. Naturally, if something was too expensive the person concerned could object. It would be a legitimate case for appeal. I imagine that the sheriff would be inclined to act if he thought that something was too expensive, not necessarily on something costing thousands of pounds, but perhaps even £20 or £40.

Mr. G. Campbell: Since the Minister of State referred to Clause 9(1,d) he should reflect that it states that the Board shall have power
… to do all such things as are incidental to, or conducive to the attainment of the purposes of, any of their functions".
That seems to be so general that until the hon. Gentleman mentioned it it had not occurred to me that it would cover the payment of compensation. The hon. Gentleman has said certain things in the House that do not appear to be in the Bill. Will what he says be enough later, when the Measure becomes law?

Mr. Willis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Clause as drafted is sufficient. He should have consulted his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about the provision in Clause 9(1,d),


which, as the hon. Gentleman said, states that the Board shall have the power
… to do all such things as are incidental to, or conducive to the attainment of the purposes of, any of their functions".
The Board will be able to meet expenses if they are reasonable, depending on the nature of the application. The Board will have the power to do this and we see no reason to write such a power into the Bill yet again.
We appreciate that subsection (1) is widely drawn and that the powers of the Board are wide. The Board will embrace a number of powers and it will be unusual in that the powers it will have in respect of the collating of information, and so on, will be wide. We recognise that fears have been expressed about this, but we believe that the powers being granted are reasonable. I draw attention to the limitation that exists within the Clause. The hon. Gentleman spoke about our seeking information from a business which would not benefit or be affected by what the Board was doing or the purposes for which it required the information. If the hon. Gentleman reads the subsection, he will find that that is not so. He will find that there is a limitation within the subsection in the last words. I drew attention to this in Committee.
Subsection (1) says:
The Board may by notice served on the owner or occupier of any land in the Highlands and Islands or on any person carrying on a business or undertaking therein require him to furnish them with such information as may be specified in the notice with regard to the land, business or undertaking and with regard to such other matters relating thereto, as the Board may reasonably require for the execution of any of their functions under this Act in relation to the land, business or undertaking.
It is limited to that. I said this in reply when the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn quoted the possibility of the Board wanting to set up a brewery to produce Drambuie. It was suggested that the Board could ask a firm for a secret recipe and then start producing Drambuie. These words limit the effect to undertakings, land or businesses which will be affected.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: This is obviously a very important Clause. I take the point that the provision is restricted to functions in

relation to land. That is why I have never been able to understand the general observations about the Board requiring to have information about tourism. I do not see how it could obtain information from a business unless it had its eyes on the business itself. I do not see how it could get information about numbers of tourists, their length of stay, and so on, unless it was considering taking over the business concerned. If the Board had its eyes on acquiring the business concerned it could obtain the information. Then, if the deal fell through, there would be nothing to prevent the Board using that information, provided it used it for its own functions under the Act.
Subsection (1) provides that any information acquired in this way cannot be disclosed otherwise than for the purpose of the Act. If the Board required information in this way and negotiations fell through, that information could still be used by the Board in other fields, provided that it was being used in furtherance of the Board's functions.

Mr. Willis: I imagine that the Board will build up a body of information over a time. All such bodies given power to acquire businesses build up information and this applies wherever these powers are given. I forget the point made by the hon. Member about tourism.

Mr. Wylie: The point was accepted that the information is acquired in pursuance of a purpose in relation to the business concerned. I cannot see how general information about tourism could be acquired, as was indicated not only this evening but on other occasions.

Mr. Willis: Let us suppose that the proposal that the Board was considering was the development of facilities for tourism. It might be a motel, a car park, caravan facilities, for instance. The Board might be considering the whole question of accommodation. In the course of considering that question, the Board could require information concerning this, perhaps from hoteliers and others. In fact, as I said in Committee it probably would be of advantage to a hotelier to give that information, because the Board might ask, "Why do you not do this?" The hotelier might say, "I cannot afford it. This would require a capital expenditure of £50,000. I have


not got that kind of money". The Board might say to the hotelier—I visualise this as the likely thing which would happen—"We will enable you to.
We think it is important that, if we develop this area and install certain facilities, there should be additional residential accommodation. We have no wish to start up on our own. After all, we have many things to do all over the Highlands, but we have the power to give you financial assistance. We will make you a grant or a loan on certain conditions". This seems to me to be the way in which it will work. In such a case, the Board would get information about the hotel business in that area.

Mr. Wylie: I would agree that in that case the Board could get the information, because it would require the information for the purposes of its function under the Bill when enacted in relation to that business. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say at one stage tonight and on other occasions that, if the Board wanted information on tourism generally, it could go to hoteliers in connection with whose business it had no specific intentions and require that information. I do not think that it could under the Clause.

Mr. Willis: I do not think that that is so important, because the Board probably would not want so much a survey of tourism of the Highland area which, after all, reaches from Muckleflugga down to the Mull of Kintyre. The trade itself varies from district to district. What the Board would in practice be concerned with would be a possible development of tourism in a particular part of the Highlands. It might want to encourage more people to go to Skye. It might want to encourage more people to go to Mull.
The Board would go to Mull and make a survey of the conditions there. It would approach MacBraynes. It would approach the hoteliers. It would approach the various local authorities and the Council of Social Services, discuss the matter with them, ask what the possibilities were, and ask what should be done. Then it would seek the information from the people who would be affected. This is how I visualise the Board operating. It is for purposes like that the the Board will require information.
In reply to the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) about the nature of the information the Board could get, I drew his attention to the limitations. These powers are very limited, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. They are limited to the land, business or undertaking which is likely to be concerned. The Board cannot go wandering about the Highlands getting information on making Drambuie so as to go up to the Orkneys and make it there.

Mr. G. Campbell: I understand that. The difference between us is that the wording which the hon. Gentleman has read from the end of the offending subsection states that the information can only he required reasonably in execution of any of the functions in relation to that land or business. It does not mean that it is for the benefit of that land or business. Our point is that information of a wide character should not be sought from an individual, who may not in fact be going to benefit. His land may be affected; it may be connected with the functions of the Board, but he may find that his land is purchased against his will compulsorily. That is the distinction we are trying to make.

Mr. Willis: But, of course, the functions of the Board are to promote the economic well-being of the Highlands, and one would expect, by and large, the well being of the people will be promoted as a result of what the Board does. I do not deny that there is a possible danger here, but, if there is doubt about it, we come to the second factor. As a result of the Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), we have accepted the appeal procedure which enables these questions to be decided and the sheriff to decide whether the information should be given if the person objects. This is a considerable safeguard which ought not to be underrated. It does not appear in many other cases where information has to be given.

Mr. MacArthur: As I understand it, the Minister of State sets some store by the special protection which he says is provided by the word "functions". Is that so? It is an argument which was advanced in Committee, as I understood it.

Mr. Willis: I was referring to the final words of the Clause which relate to information which can be sought, and the matters mentioned are
in relation to the land, business or undertaking".
These were the words to which I referred in Committee also when we discussed this matter.

Mr. MacArthur: But the earlier words of the subsection are
with regard to the land, business or undertaking and with regard to such other matters relating thereto as the Board may reasonably require for the execution of any of their functions under this Act.
The functions spring from Clause 2, and they are, in essence, directed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Willis: The words are
… require for the execution of any of their functions"—
under Clause 2
in relation to the land, business or undertaking".
This is the land, business or undertaking which is referred to in line 33. One ties up with the other.
The point I make is that this in itself is a limitation upon the information which can be sought. There was a lot of talk in the Committee about it, and I know that there are people in the Highlands who have the idea that it will be possible to ask anybody anything about what he does, close his business down and start it up oneself, using his secret information and so on. This is quite wrong. It simply cannot be done. The second safeguard in the Clause will be the appeal procedure, which, as I have said, does not exist in many cases where public bodies are given power to obtain information.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn spoke about the White Fish Authority, with reference to subsection (2). The White Fish Authority, he said, was paying grants and loans and, therefore, it could obtain information. But the White Fish Authority has rather more responsibilities than that. It has responsibility for framing schemes to promote the well-being of the white fish industry. Nevertheless, the White Fish Authority is given very wide powers, as I said in Committee.
I have given the reasons why we want to obtain information or feel that we

might possibly want to obtain information on a wider scale than would be possible under the Amendment. I have also pointed out the safeguards. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The debate has been conducted in a far more rational and sensible way than was the case on many occasions in Committee. The Opposition—that is, the main opposition—have been responsible for spreading a somewhat alarmist attitude towards this Clause. They seem to approach it from the point of view that there is some sort of totalitarian apocalypse around the corner. This is quite unreasonable. We have had references to people like Hitler and Stalin. Many of these criticisms were not worth proper discussion.
We must surely approach any Clause or legislation of this kind from the point of view of what reasonable people will do. Speaking as a Liberal, I know that I was severely criticised for supporting the Clause in Committee. I thought that it was the right thing to do, and that is still my opinion. I am very pleased that the Minister accepts an appeal mechanism. The fact that he has accepted it so readily is an earnest of his intentions. Again, he has shown that the objectives of this Clause are good rather than the bad ones which have been expressed.
We have a Bill of this sort because there are very special circumstances which have resulted from long years of neglect. Since I feel that a great many of the people who have been talking about Hitler and Stalin have a fair degree of responsibility for this neglect, their criticism is, to that degree, devalued. The way in which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), supported by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), moved the Amendment was eminently reasonable. But the answer given by the Minister at some length was adequate, and certainly satisfied me.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said that the acceptance of the appeals procedure by the Minister of State was an earnest of his intentions. I think that it is an indication of the unease of his feelings about the possible effects of this Clause. He said that this was an unusual


innovation in the conduct of Scotland's affairs, that no one knew how it would turn out and that the appeals procedure was an unusual way of providing some sort of safeguard against any mistakes which may be made by the Board as the result of the Bill.
We on this side of the House start from a position in which we seek to make more specific the powers and work of the Board. Hon. Members opposite start from a position in which they put down a blanket control relating simply to the functions of the Board and say that we must trust the good faith and good sense of the Board. We are anxious to do that. However, we have already had experience in Scotland of Government bodies dealing with private industries with a view to giving them grants and loans to help them to expand their businesses in order to provide employment in areas where it is sorely needed. That system works slowly and often disappointingly, but, as far as we know, it works very well, and I do not believe that the bodies responsible for administering this kind of Government assistance will be able to ask for anything they like under the wide-ranging limits of the Clause unless the Amendment is accepted.
I was surprised to hear the Minister of State say that he could not accept the Amendment because, as I am sure that he would be the first to agree, he is a most fair-minded man and this Amendment is a very fair and reasonable one. My surprise was intensified when I listened to his reasons. He said that subsection (1) did not go far enough—did not cover, for instance, the land use or viability of whatever enterprise was being conducted on the land. But surely that objection is covered in subsection (2), which seeks to give the Board power to make any inquiries which it may reasonably require in the execution of its functions under Clause 8
… in relation to the land, business or undertaking.
What is to prevent the Board, under this Amendment, from asking such questions as the hon. Gentleman alluded to? He went on to talk about other information that the Board may need, about businesses and undertakings. He referred to questions about numbers of people employed or the number of tourists

who pass through an area in a week and other details of information of that kind. I fail to see anything in the Amendment which would prevent the Board from asking questions of that sort.
Under the Amendment the Board would be entitled to ask anything it reasonably required and, as the hon. Gentleman said, there seems nothing outrageous in asking questions of that sort. It seemed eminently reasonable and surely the kind of inquiry that the Board would want to make and could make if the Amendment were accepted.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I intervene with some hesitation, even for only a short time. I do so because Clause 11 (1) gives very wide powers. This may well be an exception but it may well be used as a precedent. The Clause begins:
The Board may by notice served on the owner or occupier of any land in the Highlands and Islands or on any person carrying on a business or undertaking therein require him to furnish them with such information as may be specified in the notice with regard to the land, business or undertaking …
It is extremely wide. Geographically it covers the Highlands and Islands. It covers the owner or occupier of land, or
… any person carrying on a business or undertaking …
Such a person must furnish the Board with such information as may be specified. It is a blanket power. The Clause goes on:
… and with regard to such other matters relating thereto, as the Board may reasonably require for the execution of any of their functions under this Act in relation to the land, business or undertaking.
That is the second barrel to subsection (1), but the first is entirely open and specifies any information. This is extremely wide, and is creating a precedent which I think it will be very undesirable to follow in Acts of Parliament.
In the Amendment my right hon. Friend has spelt out the matters in the three subsections. I know that in referring to this the Minister of State pointed out that certain other matters were not included, but I ask the Secretary of State to include them as well if necessary. I ask him to spell them out, and to insert them in the Bill when it goes to another place.
It must be remembered that this is a penal matter. Subsection (2) says that anyone guilty of an offence is
liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
This makes it a criminal matter, and it is therefore right, when we are considering a matter under the criminal law, that the offence should be spelt out, and the information which is required should be specified in detail in the Bill. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider inserting in detail the matters which are required, instead of doing it in the way set out in the Bill as drafted. The Bill provides a complete blanket by saying that the Board may ask for any information which it may require.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point, because it is one of considerable importance, not only in relation to the Bill itself, but because it may well set a precedent which it would be undesirable to follow.

Sir John Gilmour: Although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) was not here when the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) was speaking, he has, curiously enough, almost mirrored what the hon. Gentleman said about the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that it was the only truly Socialist Measure that had been introduced during the present Session of Parliament, and that he hoped it would be a prototype for other similar Measures. It is odd that my hon. and learned Friend should have seen it in the same light as the hon. Gentleman saw it.
I think that I would in many ways like to follow the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), because what he really said was that there was some doubt in the minds of the people in the Highlands about whether the information for which they were being asked was really necessary. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) has done a service, because, by breaking down the information that is required into two categories, I think that we go a long way towards allaying any fear and suspicions that people may have about the type of information for which they are asked. Nothing is more

off-putting to a person in his home, on his farm, or at his business, than to receive an enormous questionnaire asking for a whole lot of information which he feels does not apply to him at all.
By breaking down this information into two sections, my hon. Friend has done a great service to the Bill, because there is no doubt—and I am certain that both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State know this already—that there is a great deal of information available with regard to agricultural land through the agricultural returns which people make. Nothing will annoy, and put off, and prevent co-operation by people in the Highlands more than asking them to provide a whole lot of information which they have already provided in the normal course of their returns on 4th June and 4th December every year.
No one wants to prevent this new body from getting any extra information that it requires, but there must come a stage when the information which may be required by this body is such that the owner is incapable of supplying it. He may be doing soil analysis and be able to send copies of his returns to the Board, but, generally speaking, farmers analyse their soil only once every seven years. Will they, at the whim of the Board, if they have done their soil analysis four years previously, have to do another one the following year at their own expense, or perhaps at the expense of public funds made available through the colleges of agriculture?
By splitting the information which the Board requires into two sections, the first of which deals basically with land—and the authority extracting it already has particulars of sheep stock, numbers of men employed and so on, all of which is already available—it is possible to obtain the co-operation and good will of the people living in the Highlands. We all want to start the new authority off with the co-operation and good will of everyone. By breaking this down into two sections my hon. Friend is doing the new Board a great service, and I am certain that, on reflection, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State will agree to accept the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) hit the nail on the head


when he mentioned the words "good will". If this is to be a success, and we are to obtain the necessary information without difficulty, it is essential to create good will on the part of the people who will be asked to give the information.
The greatest fear of any new Measure is the fear of the unknown. All the criticism directed against the Clause in the Highlands has essentially been caused because people have not been sure precisely how far the Government could go, or intended to go, or would have to go, in promoting the Board and making it a success. If the Government accepted the Amendment, or even the idea of putting the information which could be demanded into categories of this sort, it would be possible to overcome the difficulty which has been experienced by issuing a small pamphlet to people who might be affected, explaining their rights and obligations. If the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment such a situation would almost certainly be possible.
Time and time again—and it is true that we tend to adopt too rigid an attitude to a Measure of this sort because of the fear of the unknown—it has been explained that these powers are in no sense a precedent. I can remember when, in Committee, the Government spokesman explained how similar powers were contained in such Measures as the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, the Sea Fish Industry Act and the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, 1961. But he admitted that for a body of this sort these were new powers, and the only explanation that he gave was that the Board was a unique body—the first of its sort.
We accept that, but if the Government were moved to look at the basis of the Amendment they would see the justification for it. Although a great deal of care has been put into the drafting, and in trying to cover as much information as we felt could reasonably and practicably be obtained by the Board, it is possible that some matters have been left out. The Minister of State referred to some of these, and he thought that the Amendment was not complete in that sense. If we agreed that there were some omissions and he was prepared to accept the

principle of categorising the information which would be required, so that limits could be laid down, it would be a great help. It would not reduce the effectiveness of the Bill. On the other hand, it would remove much of the fear that exists in the minds of people who may be affected.
Why do people fear the present situation? One matter referred to in subsection (3) is the question of cost. Taking only the business point of view, and what the Board will look at, the kinds of industry about which the Board will be interested in obtaining information fall into three categories. First, there is the small, new and emerging industry. Clearly, if there is to be a future for them—if there is to be scope for expansion—the Board will want as much information as it can get about them. If there is scope for setting up similar industries in other parts of the Highlands the Board will want the maximum amount of information.
But it may well be that these industries will be new and small and may not have adequate commercial staff to supply the information wanted by the Board. They may not have the time and resources to provide it. The information the Board might require in respect of a new and small company might be far greater than the information required from an established and, perhaps, prosperous industry. To that extent we should bear in mind the cost.
For that reason, it is essential that even if the Amendment is not accepted as a whole, the Government should at least accept the principle of subsection (3) so as to make some provision for costs where the costs are above a certain amount. My hon. Friend mentioned any sum above £5, and that would appear to be fair and reasonable. While I thought that it might be advisable to pay all the sum if we were prepared to go to the trouble of following up items of less than £5, it would not be of any assistance.
The second kind of industry in which the Board will be particularly interested is the marginal type. If we look at what is in the Amendment and think of the marginal type of industry, we shall accept the very real grounds for fear on the part of small industrialists in the North of Scotland. If the Board is to do its job effectively, it will have to take a very real interest in business or industries


where there might be a prospect of folding up or a prospect of new investment being put in to encourage the unit to expand. In other words, the industries from which the Board will be interested in getting information may be those which have not the time, resources or money to provide such information.
Apart from that, we are aware that the question of trade secrets is very much involved. All these things are creating a certain suspicion about what information the Board may require. That is why I feel it is essential that we should make an Amendment of this sort, though not necessarily this Amendment. I am sure that if the Government accepted the principle of trying to lay down the limits in some way to what information is required, it would greatly assist the Board and would also create the necessary good will. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the Amendment.

Mr. Wylie: There has been so much discussion of this Clause that I intend to keep my remarks very short. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am trying to help the House. We have had a great deal of discussion.
We on our side are very grateful to the Minister of State for the care with which he has addressed his mind to the problems with which we are concerned. People must realise that we are genuinely concerned about this matter. It is not a reactionary approach to life. Anyone who considers this kind of provision with any degree of care must realise, as has been pointed out, that it is breaking new ground. It is not based on precedent. The wording may be based on precedent in some special cases, but in the context of the Bill the powers are new and exceptional. They are not the kind of powers which the House ought to let go by default or ought to endorse without the very greatest care.
We initially proposed during the Committee stage that the whole Clause should be deleted. That was not, as I understood the Minister of State to suggest, because we did not want the Board to have any powers at all. No one in his senses could expect a body of this nature not to have powers to obtain information. My right hon. Friend the

Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) would certainly not append his name to a proposal to deprive a body of this nature of the power of acquiring information. That was not our intention. We took the view, rightly or wrongly, that, given the complexity of this Bill, it was not for us to try to frame a Clause which would specify and distinguish the kind of powers which the Board really wanted, but that it was a matter for the Government. It was with that in view that we tabled the earlier Amendment to delete the Clause.
This is an attempt to spell out the kind of powers which, from what we know of the new Board's activities—although we do not know a great deal about them yet—we think that the Board might reasonably require. We want the Board to have the powers that it might reasonably require. We feel it our duty to the public and to the individual, because the rights of the individual have not gone completely by the board yet. We owe it as a duty to the individual man and woman in the Highland areas to see that statutory bodies of this nature are not given wider powers than are necessary to enable them to fulfil their functions.
Subsection (1) of the Amendment is the kind of provision which is frequently found where there are powers of compulsory acquisition of land and where there are powers to develop land. Under Clause 4, that is one of the primary powers which this statutory body will have. It will have power to acquire land and to develop land. Accordingly, it must be entitled to get the kind of information which a body with those powers will reasonably require to enable it to fulfil its functions.
Among the so-called precedents which have been quoted is the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, Section 102 of which provides the kind of power to acquire information as is specified in subsection (1) of the Amendment. The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, another instance which has been quoted, is a further example of this kind of power, almost in the same terms, with which we would take no exception. Indeed, the wording of the new subsection (1), as the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will readily appreciate, comes straight from Section 15 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955.
We have no objection to that kind of power to obtain that kind of information being given to a body whose statutory powers include a power to acquire and develop land. It may be that reference to land use is omitted from the Amendment. It may be that because of the special circumstances of the Board land use should be specified in the Clause. By all means let us have it. The point of the whole exercise is to try to specify the kind of powers that will be required so that the public and the individual know where they stand.
Subsection (2) of the Amendment incorporates the wide provisions which are frequently found either in special cases where statutory bodies are set up for restricted purposes or, more generally, in cases where statutory bodies are set up the primary function of which is to provide grants in aid or assistance in one form or another. In that situation, it is not open to the individual who is to receive financial benefit from public funds to object to the obtaining of any information which is relevant to enable the statutory body to assess the degree of assistance which is to be given.
An example of that is to be found in the Sea Fish Industry Act, among the provisions of Section 4 of which are wide powers to provide grants and loans for the provision of fishing vessels and gear, the provision of plant, maintenance of equipment, trading and the rest. A great deal of public money is channelled into that industry through this legislation.
Where public funds are directed to that kind of purpose, certainly the public are entitled to know the whole facts before public money is expended. It is because public money is being used that subsection (2) of the Amendment has been framed in the way that it has. As the Minister knows, Clause 8 deals with the application of public funds. We say that where we are concerned with the application of public funds, the Board should be entitled to ask for any information that it wishes which is relevant to enable it to fulfil its functions under that Clause.
9.45 p.m.
Of course, that is a very different thing from being able to ask for all kinds of information in relation to the general functions of the Board, functions which

are about as wide as they could possibly be stated. Indeed, I very much doubt whether there has ever been in the history of this country any statutory body which has been given such wide powers as this statutory Board, and I am absolutely certain that there are no previous examples of powers of this kind given to a statutory body in this country.
I should like to mention other special cases. It is true that the Industrial Training Act of last year and the Harbours Act of last year, which have been cited as precedents, required the giving of information, but again, under the Harbours Act what one has to remember is that the Minister is dealing as a rule with public authorities, harbour authorities. The situation is different when we are dealing with individuals, and requiring information from individuals, as in many cases under this legislation the Board will be. Not only that, but under the Harbours Act there are substantial powers to advance public funds.
I think that the figure of £100 million is written into the Harbours Act of last year. Likewise under the Industrial Training Act, similar powers are given to make grants or loans of £50 million or more. Of course, we agree that if public money of that kind is being expended wide powers to acquire relevant information are necessary.
I would be the first to concede that the wording of this Amendment may not be sufficient to cover the needs of the Board, but all we are asking in this connection and all we have ever asked is that the powers should be defined and that the Government should not take the easy way out and just provide a general power, a blanket authority. I am not suggesting that this would be abused by this or any other Government, but it is not for this House to grant powers of this nature to statutory bodies unless those powers are justified.
Finally, on the question of expenses it is quite true that there may be—though I must say I would not have guessed it from Clause 9(1,d)—that this power to grant expenses, but even if there is, it is purely permissive. Surely, if we are to ask for the kind of information which this Board may require, and if that is going to require substantial expenditure on the part of the individual who has got


to provide the information, in all equity it is only reasonable, in so far as that expenditure exceeds £5—in this instance; and it could be more or it could be less, although it would hardly be worth collecting if it were less—that it should be met from public funds.
If expenditure is to be incurred on the part of an individual in providing information which this statutory body requires it is only just that there should be written into the Bill a statutory duty, not a permissive power, that that expenditure should come out of public funds.
I suggest to the House that, even if this Amendment in its present terms is not altogether acceptable, this is one Clause which the House ought to think about carefully, and the Government, even in another place, should see if it is possible to spell out these provisions in more definite terms.

Mr. Ross: It is only fair that I should say a word or two in reply to the sincere speeches which have been made about this Amendment and this Clause. I fully appreciate that we are asking here for powers which are not normally given in this form and that hon. Members are entitled to seek safeguards, and guidance about how the powers are likely to be used, but I want to appeal to the House to see that what we are dealing with is a problem of very many years standing and not just one little aspect, as some particular aspect has been covered by some previous Measure—covered by the Harbours Act, for instance, affecting harbours and jetties.
The Bill is not so limited; it does not just cover land, but it covers agriculture, it covers industry, and it covers all the things which may have to be done to revive the Highlands and give the people a chance of living a prosperous life there. It is because it is so all-embracing that the danger is that if we start scheduling and specifying we shall find what the

hon. and learned Member now himself concedes—that something else might quite well be put in.
We have given this matter considerable thought, for the simple reason that unless the Board proceeds with good will it will not succeed, and if the fears with which the hon. and learned Gentleman started were justified the Board could not succeed because it could not build up good will. The fact that there is this recognition and that we all seek to have the right type of Board makes us entitled on this side of the House to be trusted to seek to proceed with the best of good will. The fact that we were prepared to write into the Bill appeal procedure at the request of hon. Members shows that we are sincere in this matter. I am sorry that we have not been able to meet one another, and I do not think that we will now. We on this side are acting not on the basis of tyranny but purely on the basis of what is required to meet this problem which comprehends within it so many problems.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Secretary of State not think that he should have made more clear what information is now lacking? There are many sources of information which are already available and damage will be done to good will if use is not made of the information which is already there.

Mr. Ross: I agree that there is a tremendous amount of information available, but it may well not be related to a particular project in a certain area. This is where we come up against the problem of individuals when we are dealing with whole areas, but I assure the hon. Member that we are proceeding not on the basis of injuring people but of benefiting whole areas.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 33, stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 84.

Division No. 187.]
AYES
[9.53 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Buchanan, Richard
Floud, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foley, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman
Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chapman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrow, A.


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Bowen, Roderic (Gardigan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Grey, Charles


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hale, Leslie




Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McCann, J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
MacColl, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hannan, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Harrison, Walter, (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Rose, Paul B.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hazell, Bert
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
MacMillan, Malcolm
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Holman, Percy
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Hooson, H. E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Horner, John
Manuel, Archie
Slater Joseph (Sedgefield)


Howie, W.
Mason, Roy
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hoy, James
Millan, Bruce
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Molloy, William
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Murray, Albert
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Norwood, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Jackson, Colin
Ogden, Eric
Thorpe, Jeremy


Janner, Sir Barnett
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Warbey, William


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Owen, Will
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G.



Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lomas, Kenneth
Redhead, Edward
Mrs. Slater and Mr. Harper.


Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
More, Jasper


Anstruther Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Eyre, Reginald
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Gammans, Lady
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baker, W. H. K.
Gardner, Edward
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Scott-Hopkins, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, R.
Shepherd, William


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Stodart Anthony


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Bingham, R. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hornby, Richard
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Ward, Dame Irene


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Weatherill, Bernard


Campbell, Gordon
Kilfedder, James A.
Webster, David


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Whitelaw, William


Cooper, A. E.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Corfield, F. V.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Wise, A. R.


Costain, A. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
MacArthur, Ian
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
McLaren, Martin
Woodnutt, Mark


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maclean, Sir Fitroy
Wylie, N. R.


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
McMaster, Stanley
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Mawby, Ray
Younger, Hn. George


Doughty, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Eden, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Munro, Hector
Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Pym.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood ad adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lowson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 7, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to "as".
The effect of the Amendment would be to take out the reference to "other matters relating thereto" from subsection (1).

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are developing the Highlands and Islands. There must be less noise.

Mr. Wylie: The subsection begins by providing that
The Board may by notice served on the owner or occupier of any land in the Highlands and Islands or on any person carrying on a business or undertaking therein require him to furnish them with such information as may


be specified in the notice with regard to the land, business or undertaking …
The subsection continues:
… and with regard to such other matters relating thereto, as the Board may reasonably require …
The hour is getting rather late, but I cannot understand what those words add to the words which have already gone before. It seems that the subsection would do just as well without those words, and the purpose of the Amendment is to delete them.

Mr. Willis: We covered some of the subject of this Amendment in discussion of the last Amendment. I am afraid we

(2) Any owner, occupier or other person on whom a notice has been served under the last foregoing subsection may within one month of the service of the notice appeal to the sheriff on the ground that the information or any part thereof specified in the notice is not reasonably required by the Board for the execution of any of their functions under this Act in relation to the land, business or undertaking, and the sheriff may make such order either confirming or quashing or varying the notice as he thinks fit.

This Amendment is to provide a right of appeal which meets to a certain extent objections in relation to rights of the individual raised in Committee, and particularly to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). This is a very simple, self-explanatory and important Amendment. It is an indication of our good will in respect of the kind of thing which was raised in Committee.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "appeal to the sheriff" and to insert:
serve a counter-notice on the Board".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment the following Amendment to the proposed Amendment can be discussed—in line 5, after "undertaking", insert:
and within seven days of the receipt of such counter-notice the Board may apply to the sheriff for an order in terms of the said notice or any part thereof".

Mr. Wylie: The function of my Amendment is to shift the responsibility of an application to the court from the recipient of the notice on to the Board. It also has a consequential but very important result on the question of the onus of proof. As the Government Amendment at present stands, the recipient of the notice, if he decides to go to the court, has to prove that the terms of the notice

cannot accept this Amendment for the same reasons that we could not accept the previous one, namely, that it would limit the amount of information which could be obtained. We think there is information of a kind which it would be helpful for the Board to be able to get. The House is anxious to get on and I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier. For the reasons I have mentioned we cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 7, line 37, at the end to insert:
are unreasonable. The object of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is to put the obligation on to the Board on receipt of a counter notice to go to the court and prove that the terms are reasonable. In these circumstances that is only appropriate.
Although a great deal has been said about what a useful and generous gesture this has been, it seems that in practice the whole provision is almost valueless. We are dealing with an executive authority with discretionary powers and no court will readily interfere and say that the exercise of those powers is unreasonable. The Minister's Amendment certainly would do no harm but it would do very little good. It would be slightly better if the onus was put on the Board to go to law and discharge the onus of proof.
I ask the Minister if it is to be understood that the application to the sheriff is a matter which will be decided on the criminal onus of proof or on the civil onus? One must bear in mind that the whole Clause sets up a statutory offence. If instead of going to court, which is a civil court, to decide in the first instance whether the terms are reasonable the recipient of the notice allows himself to be prosecuted, the charge would have to be proved by the Board or the prosecutor on behalf of the Board on the higher standard of proof. It is important to be perfectly clear that the onus of proof is


discharged only in the sheriff court proceedings under this Amendment by the higher standard of proof. That must be right in view of the consequential penal provisions.
I see no reference to the application to the sheriff being final. That being so, I assume that there must be a right of appeal through the normal channels from actions in the sheriff court. If so there would have to be consequential Amendments.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: On a point of information, who bears the cost of this process of going to law? If the Minister's Amendment is accepted and an owner-occupier or other person goes to court and the sheriff makes an order quashing the notice, is the person who goes to law still liable for the costs of the case?

Mr. Willis: As I understand it, the answer to the last point is that, if the sheriff gave a decision against the Board, the Board would probably have to meet the costs. I am sorry that we cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment to the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the House is rather anxious to get on with its business, for a rather important reason. I do not think that we should unnecessarily waste the time of the House at a time like this.
The procedure set out in the Bill is normal. So far as I have been able to find, there is only one example where the procedure suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman is used. That is in the case of a notice to quit an agricultural holding. There is a very important difference, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will admit, between a man defending his right of security of tenure in a holding and somebody appealing against being asked to provide certain information.
The second reason why we must reject the Amendment to the Amendment is that this opens the door for somebody on whom a notice has been served to put the Board to considerable expense, trouble and delay for what might be no reason at all. In other words, anybody could hold up the work of the Board simply by issuing a counter notice with no intention of following it through. I

do not think this is reasonable. For this reason also, we would reject the Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. Wylie: If the counter notice is served, it is not for the recipient to do anything after that. The initiative lies with the Board. This provision allows the Board within seven days to take the matter up.

Mr. Willis: The short answer is that, if the person once issues the counter notice to the Board, he does not need to do anything else. The Board then has to prepare a case, engage counsel, go to court, or whatever it might be. It might be to the sheriff court in the Orkneys or the Shetlands. Meanwhile, the man has no intention of going any further with the counter notice. Therefore, as the hon. and learned Gentleman readily realises, this procedure could be used easily as a means of holding up the work of the Board. For these two quite good reasons, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Noble: I am rather depressed with the Minister's answer. When we started the consideration of the Bill, the Minister of State moved an Amendment which the House accepted on the ground that what the Bill sought to do was particularly to help the people in the Highlands. The Amendment to the Amendment is designed particularly to help the person in the Highlands who may, perhaps through no fault of his own, find himself in danger of serious proceedings before the court which, as I understand, could, in certain circumstances, land him in prison. The Liberal Party surprised me a good deal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members who are not wearing kilts and who are not interested in Scotland would leave the Chamber, their departure would probably considerably improve the tone of the debate. On two or three occasions already we have had to ask the Chair to stop hon. Members opposite carrying on private conversations. If they are not interested in the Bill, they may leave, and I do not imagine that any Scotsman will object.
10.15 p.m.
I am surprised that on our last Amendment the Liberal Party decided to support the Government, although we were making a sincere effort to protect ordinary people in the Highlands who might


be asked to give all sorts of information to the Board to protect them both from the effects of making mistakes and from the considerable costs they might have to incur in providing information. Liberal Members chose not to support us because they put their whole faith in this procedure of appeal to the sheriff court, but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) has explained, it is entirely illusory in any case. It is a gesture which the Secretary of State has made. It has won him several votes, and I do not grudge him those votes. He is at liberty to use any method he chooses to obtain the votes of Liberal Members if they do not really understand, as I think is true in this case what they are doing.
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, his Amendment to the Government's Amendment would put the obligation on the Board, not on the individual. On several occasions today, we have emphasised how important it is to have the right Board, so there is no particular danger in this, and I should have thought that our proposal would be entirely acceptable to the Government. My hon. and learned Friend has rightly pointed out also that no sheriff court would be in the least likely to interfere with discretionary powers which an executive body was using in the normal course of its business. Therefore, the Secretary of State's Amendment is of no particular value.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter more consideration. I think that he is genuinely interested in the position of individuals in the Highlands. At a later stage, perhaps, in another place, he will have an opportunity to put down an Amendment to safeguard these people, who, I believe, will not have a fair crack of the whip in spite of what the Liberal Party seems to believe.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I thank the Secretary of State for putting down his Amendment. I hope that he will be particularly careful and clear in answering the allegations made by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble). It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should quite calmly say that an Amendment put down in all good faith,

presumably on the best advice available to the Government, is purely illusory. I do not claim to be a legal expert or to have the great experience in interpreting legal tracts possessed by the right hon. Member for Argyll, but it would seem to me a strange pass if the Government introduced an appeal procedure of this kind in the way the Scottish Ministers have done and one then found that it could be rightly described as illusory. I hope that the Minister will firmly deny it.
I repeat that we are grateful that the Government have tabled these Amendments and have made a considerable effort to meet the real concern of certain individuals lest this wide power, introduced because of the special circumstances in the Highlands, might be misused.

Mr. Wylie: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if our proposed Amendment to the Government Amendment were accepted it would greatly strengthen the position of the individual?

Mr. Johnston: Legally, I am not sure whether this would be the case. If it is the case, I would welcome the Opposition's proposal. Again, I await the Government advice on this point because I feel that, having clearly stated that they want an appeal mechanism and that they want it to work, I do not think that the Minister could reject an Amendment which had the effect of strengthening the appeal mechanism which he has declared he wishes to see in operation.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, put and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 39, leave out "the foregoing subsection" and insert:
subsection (1) of this section".
In page 7, line 42, after first "notice" insert:
, or in the case where an appeal has been made under the last foregoing subsection, within three months after a decision on that appeal confirming or varying the notice, or of the abandonment of the appeal,".
In page 7, line 42, after second "notice", insert:
or required by the decision of the sheriff to be given".—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 13.—(ACCOUNTS OF THE BOARD ETC.)

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 23, to leave out subsections (2) to (4) and to insert:
(2) The accounts of the Board shall be audited by an auditor to be appointed annually by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State.
(3) No person shall be qualified to be so appointed auditor unless he is a member or in the case of a firm all the partners therein are members of one or more of the following bodies

the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948 by the Board of Trade.
(4) As soon as the annual accounts of the Board for any financial year have been audited, the Board shall send to the Secretary of State a copy of the accounts prepared by them for that year in accordance with this section, together with a copy of any report made by the auditor thereon.
(5) The Secretary of State shall prepare in respect of each financial year, in such form and manner and at such times as the Treasury may direct an account of the sums issued to him out of the Consolidated Fund and paid to the Board under this Act.
(6) On or before 30th November in each year, the Secretary of State shall transmit to the Comptroller and Auditor General the account prepared by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above in respect of the last foregoing financial year and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine and certify every account so prepared by the Secretary of State and lay before each House of Parliament copies of each such account together with this report thereon.
The purpose is obvious. There is no provision in the Bill for the auditing of this statutory body's accounts by an independent body of auditors. This is contrary to normal practice in most if not all legislation of this kind that I have been able to find. One almost invariably finds provisions of this nature in legislation and the terms of the Amendment are to be found word for word in a series of comparable Statutes.
In Committee, the Minister of State failed to convince me of any good reason

why there should not be an independent audit. He gave an explanation of the financing of the Board being by grant in aid. I do not think any of us appreciated what difference that made. Unless there is a very sound reason why these accounts should not be audited by independent auditors in the ordinary way the House should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman moved the Amendment sharply and quickly and I hope to ask my hon. Friends to resist it with equal sharpness and speed. There is a fundamental difference in relation to this Board that I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman adequately appreciates.
The Board cannot be compared with a new town corporation or something of that kind because it operates on money voted annually by Parliament and while it may become involved in some activities of a commercial character there is no question of settling the worthwhileness of expenditure generally by the application of commercial criteria.
The principal safeguard of the Exchequer's investment is the conduct of affairs in this House and in the ways of looking after the facts in this House. The Board is of a class of agency like the Atomic Energy Authority and the Forestry Commission, which was set up under the Agriculture Act, 1947. The audit there is by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is responsible for reporting to Parliament. Since the Board is to be an agency of this kind it is difficult to see what case can be adequately and justifiably made out for a departure in its case. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it is well looked after in the way we propose to handle it.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. William Clark: With some trepidation I speak in a Scottish debate but I have two qualifications. I am an accountant and my ancestry is Scottish. I am also encouraged by the number of English Members who are paying such attention to Scottish business.
This is a very important Bill and the Amendment is of great importance not only to the taxpayer but to the profession of accountancy. The Secretary of State,


in his brief and lucid reply, was not entirely fair to the case put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). The Board will have very much wider power, particularly under Clause 6, which gives it authority to set up trading activities.
This is a new venture. Although the Secretary of State has said that the Bill cannot be compared with the New Towns Acts, he has not stated the whole position, because, although the new towns operate on repayable Exchequer advances, whereas the new Board will operate on moneys voted by Parliament, there are also the trading activities of the Board. If the Board is to engage in trading activities, why should it not have the professional advice which is given to every trader in the country? We are endeavouring to provide that there is power for the Board to take that professional advice.
There would be no decrease in the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General who would still have the right to investigate the Board's accounts, but, with the greatest respect to his Department, it does not have the experience of trading activities which those professional auditors who are engaged in these matters every day have.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no comparison between this and other legislation, but I have a long list of Acts—the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, and many others—in which public money is involved and yet in each of which there is a provision for professional audits. Why should not the new Board have the same provision for professional audits? Why is there this antagonism towards this double safeguard for the taxpayer?
If other organisations set up by Parliament can have professional audits, why should not the new Board be able to benefit from the advice which it would receive from professional auditors?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: There are several matters which the Secretary of State should bear in mind. First, the accounts of the Board will be extremely complicated. There are to be grants to various bodies and individual factories

and new businesses, all of which will have to be accounted for. More important, there will be undertakings which the Board will carry out on its own, or through agents, or itself acting as agent.
These activities will introduce three complications. The first concerns taxation, which I have already mentioned. We tried unsuccessfully to obtain some clarification from the right hon. Gentleman about the tax position now with Income Tax and Profits Tax and the position with the new system of Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax. It is certain that it will be an extremely complicated formula which will have to be applied in three sections of the Board's activities.
First, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Board will have to pay tax as local authorities do. Most local authorities, because of the substantial amount of their borrowings, do not pay tax. However, with the new structure which we are now approaching, because of the smaller rate of Corporation Tax and because allowances are to be cut, there is the prospect that the Board, like local authorities, will have to pay tax.
What will be the position of undertakings carried on directly by the Board, or indirectly through agents, or more indirectly by the Board acting as agent? There is the final complication of the implications of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, with its definitions of what is exempt from taxation. Under English legislation it is quite clear that only local authorities are exempt from taxation but in Scotland the position is not nearly as simple because of the definition in the 1947 Act.
This is a body which charges rates for services. There are mentioned, in particular, water services, electricity services and gas services. The Board will make charges for services rendered. In those circumstances, it is more than likely that it will be affected by the provisions of the 1947 Act in which the definition is quite different from that in the English legislation.
As the accounts will be extremely complicated, and as the new legislation will make the position more difficult, I feel that the Secretary of State has a duty to make sure that these accounts are brought


Forward in the way suggested in the Amendment. In the light of what has been said, I hope that the Secretary of State will look at this again, and will accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 8, line 35, after "activities" to insert "or proposed activities".
The Amendment seeks to meet a point raised by the Opposition in Committee. It does not go all the way that the Amendment proposed in Committee went, but it goes some of the way and I hope that the Opposition will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1.—(PROVISIONS AS TO THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOP- MENT BOARD.)

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 11, line 10, to leave out paragraph (3) and to insert:
(3) All members of the Board shall be full time.
I will be brief, because the argument was dealt with in Committee at some length. I wish to state clearly and categorically that we on the Liberal Bench believe that the membership of the Board ought to be full time. Such a decision would be far the best which the Government could take. We must remember that the area which the Board is about to develop, and we very much hope develop successfully, covers half of Scotland. It is a very large area indeed.
We have said that we should prefer to see this done by a small Board of five, but the Government have held to seven. Even so, we feel that this work in an area covering half Scotland, in which we hope to see new industry, agricultural improvements and social and transport advice given, requires a full-time Board. We do not think that it is a part-time job. So many of the Boards which have been involved in Highland development have been bedevilled by this part-time attitude. It is not merely that a man is not giving the whole of his energies to a job; he is not fully committed to it. We are embarking on what the Government know is the first real experiment in regional development to take place in Britain—although, judging by the noise from hon. Members

opposite, it seems that many of them do not appreciate that fact.
I do not wish to extend the argument. It is simple. I fear that the Minister does not intend to accept the Amendment, but both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are wrong in their attitude; this is a job for full-time people and there will come a time when Ministers will admit that that is the case.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 12, line 23, to leave out from "matter," to "a" in line 24 and to insert:
but he may, nevertheless, be taken into account for the purpose of constituting".
This is another Amendment which is moved to meet a point raised in Committee, when it was pointed out that as the Schedule was worded we might reach a position when we could not conduct the business of the Board. The Amendment enables the business of the Board to be conducted and I hope that the Opposition will accept it.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Amendment meets the point that was raised by us in Committee and we are grateful that the Minister of State has been able to bring it forward, although when we argued the matter in Committee he gave us no hope that he would.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(PROVISIONS AS TO THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOP- MENT CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 13, line 30, to leave out "a member or".
It might be for the convenience of the Committee, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take, at the same time, Amendment No. 39, to which Amendment No. 38 is a paving Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Willis: The two Amendments have been put down to meet a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), supported by other hon. Members, to ensure that the Highlands and Islands were represented on the Consultative Council and that if there


was simply representation of local authorities it might be of a kind which did not ensure the proper representation of the Highlands and Islands. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) also pointed this out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 32, at end insert:
, and in appointing members representative of local authority interests the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that there is appropriate representation of the different parts of the Highlands and Islands including, in particular, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Outer Hebrides and the Inner Hebrides."—[Mr. Willis.]

Order for the Third Reading read.

(Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that if there was bitterness in my voice, there was bitterness in Scotland, too, in the recollection of the sad history of the area with which the Bill deals. I can, however, assure the House, and I reassure hon. Members opposite, that my mood tonight is not one of bitterness but one rather of confidence and faith, confidence in the people of the Highlands and of Scotland and faith in their ability to use the new powers that are given in the Bill to do something to turn what may well be a black spot in our economic and social life into something very much brighter.
There has been noticeably a change of mood in relation to the Bill as we have examined it and as opinions have been expressed. I think there were fears expressed, which were certainly not justified, about the intentions of the Bill. They have been eased, and I have recognised in our discussions today a very considerable measure of good will in respect of the Bill's intentions; and, indeed, hopes that those intentions will be fulfilled by the Board when it is set up.
I do not doubt at all that everything will depend on the quality of the Board itself, and the way it interprets its remit. I say quite frankly to the House—and the newspapers have been rather anxious to know who is on the Board, and who is not—that it is not for me to anticipate the will of Parliament in respect of any Act of Parliament, and it will not be until after the Act is safely on the Statute Book that we will make any determinations in relation to the actual Board itself.
The second matter that has caused some controversy, and really should cause very considerable interest, is the nature of the powers in the Bill. I want to stress once again, that the natures of the powers—the comprehensive nature, the sweeping nature—are indeed related to the problem with which the Board will have to deal. Time and time again—and this happened

in relation to the Crofters Commission—we have set up commissions and given them a problem with which to deal, and given them inadequate powers with which to deal with it, and by the time we came back with reforming legislation it may well be that the attitudes and the moods have changed and the opportunities lost.
We now have before us the actual powers, which to my mind are adequate to this task. I know that certain people were rather staggered when they saw them. I think some people spoke rather indirectly about Karl Marx being the author of the Bill. There were questions of tyranny; there was going to be no liberty left in the Highlands. Liberty exists only with life, and there are many hundreds of thousands of acres in the Highlands where today no life is found where there was life before. What we hope to be able to do by this Bill and the powers therein, with a Board armed with the necessary authority, given the necessary backing by the State and in finance, is to revive considerably the populations in those areas, and create prosperity where we have seen despair over centuries and a dwindling population. The hon. Gentleman opposite who is an Englishman, but who represents a Lowlands constituency, should not shake his head over this. We have had a dwindling population year after year, decade after decade.
If we are going to use properly the spaces resources, the land resources, and keep people prosperous in a part of the country where they would rather live and work, then we have got to resort to the kind of measure which we have here. This gives us an opportunity, and with the good will of all in the Highlands of Scotland and in Britain—and I am sure it is there—we can make the effort and we can win. But we must get away from the past, even in our attitudes, and look forward to the job. With the powers that are in the Bill we can do it.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Noble: We have now had quite a considerable number of hours debate this afternoon, but I am sorry that inevitably, for reasons not due to any Scotsmen so far as I know, the debate has to be somewhat curtailed. I think it is fair to say—and I think my hon. Friends would


agree—that there have been some improvements and some clarifications in the Bill as it was first presented to us. However, there are still, in my view, four major criticisms. Three of them relate to the Bill itself, and the fourth relates to the attitude of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite.
My first criticism of the Bill is that the Secretary of State has kept a great deal too much of the power in his own hands. This we have said over and over again through the course of these debates, but have made very little impression on the Government about it. The corollary of all this is that this Board, which we all hope will be a good, able and efficient one, has practically no initiative at all.
The second criticism I still have of the Bill is that, as far as one can tell by any realistic assessment, there is no chance at all of sufficient money being able to be available to achieve any seriously worthwhile results. My third criticism of the Bill is that by giving the Secretary of State, and through him the Board, the widest powers to promote and set up industries there is considerable risk that private enterprise may lack confidence in starting some of the rather risky ventures, as inevitably they are in the Highland area.
I should have liked to expand all these three points, but I do not think that I should in view of the fact that this debate must end rather earlier than some of us had hoped. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members really want to interrupt me there is no earthly reason why this debate should not go on for hours. There are a great many Scotsmen who would be pretty shocked at the way in which hon. Members opposite have been behaving.
My fourth criticism is not one of the Bill itself but of the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State towards it. The Bill enshrines what the Labour Party has been saying, on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, has been the policy of hon. and right hon. Members opposite for a great many years. They have said over and over again, "This is what we have wanted to do." The Liberal Party, not

to be outdone—quite rightly—has said, "We have had this idea for many years also." What surprises me and a great many of my hon. Friends, and certainly would have surprised a good many people in the Highlands if they had sat through our debates, is that, in spite of this having been official Government policy for years and the policy of the Liberal Party for 50 or 60 years, we have had a remarkable dearth of any sort of constructive idea from either the Government benches or the Liberal benches.
During the whole of our 17 sittings in Committee—16 serious ones and one extra sitting because the Minister of State made an ass of himself—we listened and tried to get some constructive ideas of what the Government were thinking of suggesting to the Board that it should do. We got absolutely none. It may well be that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have several ideas in their heads. Certainly in the past few months they have made expansive speeches in Scotland about the tremendous new plans they have for the Highlands. The Minister of State was in the Shetlands or Orkneys recently and he said that he had spoken to hundreds of people and that they were thrilled by some of his great ideas of plans for the Highlands. But has anyone had any idea of what these plans were?
It may well be that the Secretary of State and his Minister of State have these ideas in their minds but are refusing absolutely to divulge them. This may be because these ideas are so trifling that they would not inspire anybody if they did come out of their minds. These powers may have made us afraid; and we had every reason to be afraid, because they are quite unprecedented in their combination. It may be that the Government's ideas were so far-reaching that they did not dare tell the House or we should have seen just where these powers would have led to. I do not believe that. If that were so, it would mean that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have been grossly dishonest in many debates.
I am certain that the truth of the matter is that there are absolutely no ideas in the minds of the Secretary of State or the Minister of State about how to deal with this problem. It is a difficult problem and people have been


thinking about it for many years. The Highland Panels have made reports, as have a great many different bodies, but, in spite of it all, no clear-cut decisions on any particular line of country have yet been successfully put into effect. We have noticed—this is true not only in Scotland but outside—that the stock-in-trade of the Government at the moment is words, which very often go flat against the pledges they gave at the election.
I think that the people of the Highlands have the right to know and to judge for themselves what actions the Government have taken in this period for the Highlands. We have had debates in the House on the rise in the price of petrol. The Highlanders know that freight charges have gone up, in the case of MacBraynes' and on the railways. I have had letters in the past few days—which I have sent to the Secretary of State—showing that one of our fastest-growing industries in Scotland, the shellfish industry—the very sort of thing which this Highland Development Board would and should be developing—is running rapidly on the rocks because of the very steep rises in the price of freight and, even more important, because the trains which used to carry these goods have stopped carrying them.
This may be of no importance to hon. Gentlemen opposite who come from constituencies down here, but there are very few constituencies in the Highlands which are not seriously affected by this problem. Then there are things like the hydro-electricity board, which people in the Highlands have been waiting for impatiently. I know that this is a difficult decision, but no action has been taken. There are no signs of extra expenditure on schools, roads or any of the other things which the Highlanders were led to believe would happen. The Secretary of State is due to receive the regional plans—he may even have received them already—but he is hoping not to publish them. For the first time, last week we had something specific. Twelve thousand acres of trees are to be planted in five years in the Highlands. That is really nothing very significant.
I believe that we must accept this Bill and give it a Third Reading, but I believe that when we accept it we must face the fact that this in itself will solve

nothing. It is just another collection of words. The House should realise that this problem will not be solved just by words. It will be solved by the hard work and thought of people working there. Having listened for a great many hours to the debates on this Bill, I am bound to admit that I cannot believe that the present administration in the Scottish Office is in the least likely to solve any of its problems. The Highlanders have had too many difficulties in the past. I do not believe that they deserve a failure now.
I hope that, in accepting the Third Reading of this Bill, the House will at the same time realise that it is up to hon. Members in all parts of the House to make certain that it works.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: This is indeed a Measure to which Liberals throughout the Highlands will give a warm welcome. It has been Liberal policy for upwards of 40 years to set up the sort of Board which will be created by the Bill. Now that the Measure is in its final form, it will be admitted by all people of good will, irrespective of party allegiance, that given a Board composed of the right people and adequate financial backing, it can transform the fortunes of the Highlands in the next decade.
I stress the importance of the choice of the members of the Board because in certain quarters there is a fear that some of the compulsory powers conferred on the Board may be abused. I am convinced that, provided we have the right people on the Board, there is nothing to fear in this respect. There may be cases where certain people will fail to cooperate and it may be necessary to take compulsory powers but, from my knowledge of the Highlands, I am convinced that these cases will be few and far between.
The Highland Panel is not to be continued, among other bodies which may be discontinued. I say with respect that because of its lack of executive powers, few tears will be shed in the Highlands at the demise of that body. One is pleased to know that county councils and town councils in the Highlands are to continue their present functions. This is important.
It will be generally agreed that the Board must make full use of local resources. Since the land is our greatest asset, I hope that the Board will have a critical look at the pattern of land use in certain areas in the Highlands. The Secretary of State is the biggest landowner in the Highlands and Islands and this should help. Before tackling the private landowner who is not making the best use of his land, the Secretary of State must himself set a good example of land use.
In this connection, I refer to two large farms which the Secretary of State, and some of his predecessors, have been running for a number of years. I refer to Glenforsa in Mull and Dalchork in Sutherland. As these units are held with a view, as far as I can judge, to showing other people how to integrate agriculture and forestry, the results obtained should be made available to the public. If there is nothing worth while to show, the new Board should subdivide the farms among the many land-hungry young men in the Highlands and Islands. For the Government to be farming large units of land is, I suggest, a very bad form of nationalisation. We all agree that agriculture and forestry should be integrated and there are many ways of doing this.
The new Board must ensure that other bodies which have been set up in recent years have adequate powers to do their work properly. We have a Deer Commission, as is well known, yet we find the Forestry Commission having to finance the erection of deer fences at exorbitant costs to protect plantations. This is detrimental to the progress of planting shelter belts in many areas which are otherwise suited to planting blocks of a limited size.
I do not propose to suggest to the Board how to deal with this problem but it is one which it will find on its doorstep before very long. While we must concentrate on the traditional industries of agriculture, fishing, forestry and tourism, it is impossible to overstate the case for new light industries. This is the only way in which to maintain a viable community in many small towns and villages as well as the rural areas. The new Board will be judged in the Highlands largely by its success in bringing new industry to

the area. Transport is basic to the whole problem, so the Board will have to provide—[Interruption.]

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask that hon. Members should sit quietly and listen to the speech which is being made. We are all anxious to hear a further statement, which is to come later, but I ask hon. Members to listen to a very sincere speech so that we can get on with business in a proper way.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the House will appreciate the wisdom of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said.

Mr. Mackenzie: In 1960 I said that the Government should appoint an independent authority composed of men skilled in industry and commerce and with the necessary financial backing to bring work into the area. I still maintain that this is the greatest need. Here it is necessary to sound a note of warning against the pessimists who say that the bright lights of the cities are such a strong attraction that we shall not be able to hold our young people in the Highlands no matter what we do. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the past the Highlander had to leave home, much against his will, in order to find employment elsewhere. He still has to leave home for the same reason, but today the average Highlander is very happy to stay at home provided he can earn a good living. We do not object to a certain number of our enterprising young people going south for a period, because we know that many of them are happy to come back if we can offer them good prospects. On their return to the Highlands they find that the skill and experience gained during their period in the South is invaluable. It is terribly important that the Board should present the sort of image that will make a favourable impression at the outset. To this end a number of things are necessary.
First, the composition of the Board itself is most important. While most of the members must be appointed because of their experience and their interest in the Highlands, it will be necessary to appoint some with a knowledge of industry from outside the Highland area. Some


people seem to think that if we offer very large salaries we are bound to get suitable people to serve on the Board. This is a mistaken view. There are very few people available with the necessary qualifications, and some of those who have the qualifications are not applicants because they realise the uphill nature of the job. Their reputations are at stake. It would be morally wrong to pay big salaries unless the members of the Board are in a position to take big decisions and have the necessary finances to put those decisions into effect. Many today are serving and have served the Highlands faithfully and well on a voluntary basis.
It would be wrong to pay exorbitant sums to members of the Board unless there is something very definite that they can do. It must be made abundantly clear that this is an entirely new body with a new remit and a new outlook. It must have its own staff in every department of the work. There is a fear in certain quarters that the new Board may be just another department of St. Andrew's House. This idea would be fatal; but it is a fear which is very prevalent in many parts of the Highlands.
The Secretary of State can rest assured that the Board will have a good fund of good will behind it at the start. How long this good will will last will largely depend on how the new Board will shape. We are continually being told that the Highlands must help themselves. They have been doing just that for generations against terrible odds. Now they are looking for Government co-operation in a combined operation to arrest the depopulation of the Highlands.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing the Bill to its final stages and I wish it a very speedy passage to the Statute Book.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: I do not wish to detain the House—

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mackie: —but I could do so. I wish with great sincerity to welcome the Third Reading of the Bill and to say that it has been spoiled by a lack of any commonsense procedure in the House.

Scottish Members would gladly have delayed or interrupted their business to allow an important statement to be made. The last word on the Bill is that its final stages have been spoiled. There were many individual Members who had much to say and who would have spent a long time here to say it. The final stages have been spoiled because the procedure of the House does not allow of important and commonsense decisions being taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CONSOLIDATION &c., BILLS

So much of the Lords Message [2nd June] as relates to the addition of Four Lords to the Joint Committee to consider Consolidation, &c., Bills and requests the Commons to add an equal number of their Members to the said Joint Committee—to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Lawson.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Mr. Daniel Awdry, Mr. Ioan L. Evans, Mr. Edward Gardner, and Mr. Alan Williams added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

VIETNAM (COMMONWEALTH MISSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Lawson.]

11.12 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson) rose—

Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order. I understand that the Prime Minister is to make a statement. I understand also that he can do so only by permission of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us use up time, because it is short. It is limited to half an hour. The point is that, provided the hon. Member whose Adjournment it was consents, the Prime Minister may usurp it.

Sir C. Taylor: Further to that point of order. The statement has already been made on television, I understand.

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us use up time. The Prime Minister does not require the leave of the House in these circumstances. The fact that it has been made on television does not affect the matter.

The Prime Minister: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement at the earliest possible moment at which in accordance with the rules of the House I can make this statement. It was, Mr. Speaker, my desire to come down to the House within five minutes of the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference session this afternoon. I was not able to do that in accordance with the rules of the House, and therefore, with the indulgence of the House, I have been able to make this statement now, because I felt that it would be not convenient to make it on Friday morning, partly since the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference will be sitting at eleven o'clock when the House begins.
Sir, for several months hon. Members in all parts of the House have been deeply concerned about the situation in Vietnam, and there is, I fear, widespread agreement here that in recent weeks the position has become the more grave.
During all those months it has been the unswerving aim of Her Majesty's Government to secure a conference of all those concerned directed to bringing about an end of the fighting and to creating a permanent and honourable peace settlement. The House knows the difficulties we and others have met with in this task but, equally, the House will agree that the situation is now so potentially dangerous that it cannot be left to drift on. For reasons that the House understands, we cannot, unfortunately, in present circumstances look to the United Nations or to the Geneva Co-Chairmen to ensure the convening of such a conference.
In these circumstances, the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers has today at the outset of its talks decided to take an initiative and the following communiqué has been issued this evening from Marlborough House:

The meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government began their discussion of the international situation this afternoon by considering the position in Vietnam. They were deeply concerned by the increasing gravity of the situation and the urgency of re-establishing conditions in which the people of Vietnam may be able again to live in peace.
They believe that the Commonwealth, united in their desire to promote peace in the world, might make a contribution to this end by an initiative designed to bring hostilities to a speedy conclusion. They therefore resolved that a Mission composed of the leaders of some Commonwealth countries should on their behalf make contact with the Governments principally concerned with the problem of Vietnam in order to ascertain how far there may be common ground about the circumstances in which a conference might be held leading to the establishment of a just and lasting peace in Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, it has been decided by the Conference this afternoon that a mission representative of the whole Commonwealth and of all the different points of view that are held within the Commonwealth on this issue should enter into discussion to see how far common ground can be established leading to a conference. It will be my duty in due course to ask leave of the House for absence in order to lead this mission, as I am sure that it would be the desire of the whole House that every step open to us is taken to bring about peace in Vietnam.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is the desire of all hon. Members in every part of the House that every possible effort should be made to arrive at a political settlement of the dangerous situation in Vietnam and when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are in conference everyone would hope and expect that they would take any action open to them to further the processes of peacemaking.
The situation in Vietnam is most difficult, complex and baffling. It is one of great danger because it could lead to an escalation to a war which would be of concern to the whole world.
We on this side of the House, therefore, hope that the contacts which the Prime Ministers will make, led by the right hon. Gentleman, will assist towards a peaceful settlement. I welcome the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister. We are grateful to him for coming to the House at the earliest possible moment.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I would just say that I am sure that all of us in all parts of the House will appreciate the way in which he has responded to the statement.

Mr. J. Grimond: I, too, welcome the decision of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and wish this expedition in the name of peace every success.
Is the Prime Minister aware that what I think is particularly significant in this decision is that it will be a multi-racial approach to the problem? The delegation will, I understand, be representative of the different Commonwealth nations in the four major continents of the world.
My I ask whether, in due course, he will inform the House as to the countries he hopes to visit and as to the further details of this delegation? He has said that he hopes to visit those countries which are principally involved in the Vietnamese war. I think that the House will want to know in due course how the details are arranged and which countries receive the delegation.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: While no doubt my right hon. Friend will be aware that hon. Members who have hoped and desired that an initiative be taken by him and Her Majesty's Government will be delighted with this news and will wish him all speed and success, he will no doubt also be aware that the whole nation will be supporting him in his efforts. Without pressing him on any further detail tonight, may I therefore merely suggest that one of the earliest helpful developments, which must be in his mind, would be if the bombing operations were to cease so that there could be created an atmosphere in which work could start right away on a proper note and with the best hope of success?

Sir John Eden: I echo what has already been said and hope that the mission will succeed. The Prime Minister is undertaking an extremely difficult task.
At this stage, can he give the House any more information about the consultations he has already had with the United States of America which, after all, is the country particularly involved in trying to establish the conditions which may ultimately lead to a fair and just solution

in that part of the world? Can he also at this stage express any hope that there may he a cessation of hostilities on the part of the Vietcong guerrilla forces which are now actively operating to the detriment of peace in that part of the world?
I hope that he will be able to give more information to the House before we are likely to have a debate. Can he give any indication of when a debate on his statement and the present Vietnam situation may take place? I know that he is busy having discussions on the Front Bench at the moment, but it would be extremely helpful if he could give some undertaking about when we may have further information about exactly what is in his mind.

Mr. Stanley Orme: May I associate myself with the remarks about the Prime Minister's initiative and his visit? We are anxious that the countries which he visits should be not only those directly involved in the war, but those which may later be involved, and that his visit should include Peking, Hanoi and Washington so that he visits the major capitals concerned and holds discussions there. Will he bear in mind the difficult position of the Vietcong in Vietnam and the possibility of some negotiation in that respect?

Mr. Charles Doughty: While, of course, associating myself with the remarks already made and wishing the Prime Minister success, may I ask him when he thinks that the mission will leave this country, or whatever country it is to leave from, and whether he already knows that when he arrives in the countries he is to visit, the people of those countries will be prepared to negotiate and to talk with the mission and will not merely refuse to receive it?

Mr. William Warbey: May I ask the Prime Minister to convey the congratulations of some of us to the Prime Ministers on their new, independent and imaginative initiative? May I express the hope that this grouping and this mission will, for the first time, perhaps, be in a position to put first the interests of the people of Vietnam themselves and not those of any outside Powers? If they go in that spirit and in an effort to make contact, direct and independent contact, with all the main


and representative political groupings in Vietnam itself, I believe that the mission will succeed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should like to be associated with the expressions of hope that this mission will succeed—if it brings peace in Vietnam—but will the Prime Minister accept that peace at any price is not to be the object of this mission? Will he answer three precise questions which I should like to put to him? First, as to the composition of the mission: will he say whether the Prime Minister of Malaysia was given an opportunity to go and, if he was, why he was not included in the group? Would he also say whether he believes as British Prime Minister, and not simply, as in this case, leader of this Commonwealth mission that this mission is likely to achieve the policies as laid down by his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—namely, not merely peace but the security and freedom of South Vietnam? Although the Prime Minister has already said on television that he does not know what President Johnson's reaction will be, will he give the House an assurance that he will do his utmost to see that this country continues as far as possible to walk in step with our allies the United States?

Mr. Cohn Jackson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that this approach is the most likely to succeed because it not only has the support of this country but works with that vital Afro-Asian group which it is very necessary to have on our side if we are to get Hanoi and the Soviet Union to co-operate with us?

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: While adding my best wishes to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this mission, may I ask that, whatever the result of the mission, a full statement will be made at the end of it? One of the most heartening things about this mission is that because of its composition it is best qualified to give an independent view on what are the true handicaps to peace in Vietnam. Whether the mission succeeds or fails, will there be a frank statement at the end of it of the conclusions reached by the Prime Ministers?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Prime Minister indicate which Governments the mission is likely to visit first? I realise that there has been no real opportunity to develop the proposals which are likely to be put forward, but are they likely to express to the American Government that one of the first things which must be done to secure peace is the stopping of the bombing of North Vietnam and bringing to a speedy conclusion the present build up of forces in South Vietnam? Thirdly, may we have an assurance that the Vietcong will be brought into any conference and any negotiations as the only real solution and possible answer to a peaceful settlement in Vietnam?

Mr. Nigel Fisher: While wishing the Prime Minister well in this important Commonwealth initiative, may I ask whether he would give the House the names and countries of the Prime Ministers or Presidents who are to form part of the mission?

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: While, as the Prime Minister knows, I share some of the preoccupations which have been expressed by my hon. Friends I should like to say that I have the fullest confidence in the judgment of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers who will go on this mission to deal with all the points which have been raised from both sides of the House. In the light of some remarks which were made from the other side of the House, may I add that it has been apparent for many, many months that the continuation of the fighting could in no way promote a reasonable and sensible peace for South-East Asia?

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Prime Minister's announcement is a great contribution not only to the peace of the world but to the solidarity of the British Commonwealth of Nations and it is indeed an exemplification of the British philosophy of life and its adherence to the rule of law in international affairs. I congratulate the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the House as a whole would not expect him tonight to go into details why this or that Prime Minister was or was not accepted or did not form part of the delegation? We should be happy to accept from my right


hon. Friend tonight a broad statement, feeling that any details which have been suggested by hon. Members opposite would be inappropriate at this time.

11.30 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I can reply only by leave of the House, but so many questions have been put that I should like the opportunity to reply to them. First, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what he said. He referred to the dangers facing Vietnam in terms of a possible escalation of the war. I think that the events of the last few days face all of us with the feeling that there is a danger of a major land war in Asia as a result of what is going on.
The dangers of escalation, however, are not the only problem. The House will have realised that there is a serious poisoning of the world atmosphere by the continuing of the Vietnam fighting. All our hopes for disarmament, of which we spoke at Question Time, all our hopes for the easing of East-West tension and the initiatives which can be taken are, I think, poisoned by the fact that the Vietnam fighting is continuing.
But there is, thirdly, a factor in the minds of hon. Members, in all parts of the House, and that is the human tragedy of this fighting. We have heard on various occasions at Question Time—and it has been difficult for me sometimes not to say what I thought about those questions—about the tragedy of some of the photographs, whether from one side or the other, and I am sure that hon. Members, in all parts of the House, would feel as I felt last week-end, when we saw some of the pictures of the tragic figures—orphans, small girls in Vietnam who had lost their parents, dead children, and so on—that if there were no other reason, there is a duty upon all of us to do everything in our power to stop this beastly war from going on.
The Leader of the Liberal Party stressed—and I welcome what he said—that this is essentially not only a multiracial Commonwealth, but a multi-racial mission. I do not think that I need explain the names of the Prime Ministers who have been suggested for this mission. The list cannot necessarily be final, because in one or two cases it is necessary to find out whether absent Prime Ministers who were not with us would be able to come with us.
The idea was that the mission, headed by myself—

Sir C. Taylor: Sir C. Taylor rose—

Hon. MEMBERS: Sit down!

The Prime Minister: I do not know what is wrong with the hon. Member—

Sir C. Taylor: Sir C. Taylor rose—

The Prime Minister: This is a serious subject. I know that the names are on the tape. There is something wrong with the hon. Member at this time of the night. If he would listen to what I said—he tried to stop me speaking at all tonight—I said that it was not profitable to go into the reasons for particular members of the Commonwealth being selected, because there is not necessarily finality about them. In one case, it is a Prime Minister who was not present this afternoon. We do not know whether he will be able to come. I hope that he will. But we need not go into invidious questions of selection. What, I think, the House wants to know is that the mission is multi-racial, that it is headed by the Prime Minister of Britain and that there are two African members, one Asian member and one West Indian member.
As to the countries to be visited, I am sure that it would be the wish of the House, as it is of the Conference, that we should secure acceptance in all the countries principally concerned—Hanoi and Saigon, Moscow, Peking and Washington. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is our aim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who, together with other hon. Members, has put many questions about this matter—they are concerned about it—raised the question of the bombing of North Vietnam. I do not want to say anything about this tonight. This is a matter that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be considering. It is a problem on both sides whether we can get some restraint shown in the matter of hostilities which are at present continuing to allow the mission to do its job with the maximum result.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) asked whether we had consulted the United States. The position of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers is that we felt that we had to take an initiative, that we had to present this


initiative to the world and to hope that as many countries as possible would accept the initiative which we have taken. It was not right that we should consult countries in advance, for then we perhaps would not have reached agreement so quickly, but that we should decide as a Commonwealth—as representing, we believe, the whole world in this matter—and that every country would accept, as we hoped, what we are doing. If they did not, the world would form its own judgment of those who did not.
Although it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said in a television programme which I was on just now, that I did not know what the American attitude would have been, before the programme ended one of those funny little boards which they hold up in the middle of the programme, which actually confuses one, was actually giving us the information that President Johnson has welcomed the initiative taken.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) raised the question of the countries to be visited. I have never referred to that. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) raised the question of when this mission was taking place and also the question of who. I hope that we shall be able to leave as early in July as possible. I think that time will be required to prepare this mission properly. I hope that between now and then nothing will be done that will worsen the prospects of the very difficult work in which we are engaged.
I should like to express to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), as to others, my appreciation of what he said.
All hon. Members in all parts of the House in their different ways, and with different interpretations, in these past few months have expressed their concern about Vietnam, and at various times I have said that I was not taking sides about these arguments because we all have different ways of expressing our desire to bring the war to an end. If there are differences among hon. Members may I say that the differences among Commonwealth Prime Ministers are no less marked. This is right and this is natural, but every one of us, I think, accepts the sincerity of every other hon.

Member in wanting to see this brought to an end.
I have sometimes in these past few months had the difficult task of not saying all that we were trying to do. Now I hope it will be realised that, as I have said many times, although it would have been easy for Her Majesty's Government to express in some ringing declaration our views about this or that particular country at some moment of time, I do not believe we would have got to this situation tonight if we had satisfied our own desires for saying what we thought, and getting some perhaps rather easy plaudits, rather than biting on the steel, sometimes, and trying to get a solution. There is no one who has been through that more than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) referred to the phrase in the communiqué about a "lasting peace". I want to assure him that this is the aim of all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. We are not out for any easy solution that would not be honourable and that would not be lasting; and I used this phrase in the statement which I made to the House 20 minutes ago. He asked whether, even though I am heading the delegation as Chairman of the Commonwealth Conference, this meant any difference in our position so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned. I hope I have satisfied the House that the purpose of this multi-racial mission, representing all points of view in the Commonwealth, is that all points of view can now be represented. I shall be heading the mission and speaking for the mission, but every point of view which has been expressed in this House and elsewhere will be expressed on the mission.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that he hoped there would be a full statement to the House at the end of this mission. I hope that there will be, and I intend that there will be. It will be our duty, since we are deputed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to undertake this mission, to report to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. But in so doing I think the House can be certain that that will mean that we shall be reporting to every country, including particularly those who have sponsored this mission.
I would intend that a very full report would be made to this House. I only hope that the Rules of Procedure on that occasion will enable me to make it to the House before it is made on television. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked which Government we should see first. We have to work this out. There are some very difficult complications about the organisation of this, as to which country should be seen first, and we have set up a working party to work out some of the details.
I should like, finally, Mr. Speaker, to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker), who has played a very active and restrained part in this question, for what he has said to us tonight.
I agree with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). This is, I believe, an important step in the direction of world peace. None of us here will underrate the tremendous difficulties in reaching a solution. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely realistic about this. The odds are terribly high so far as the difficulties are concerned. One thing, I hope, we shall have done. We shall have established the united desire of the Commonwealth to secure peace in Vietnam. Another thing we shall have done—we shall have asserted—we have already asserted—the rôle of the Commonwealth in the world by the statements we have made. I could have wished—I am sure that the whole House could have wished—that there could have been some other body able to take this step. Last week my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in touch with the United Nations to see whether in present circumstances it would not be possible to take an initiative there which perhaps would have led to a mission of this kind.
My right hon. Friend has been active, as the House knows, with his fellow co-Chairman, who has not yet felt able to associate himself with us in an initiative. Where it has not been possible for these bodies to be activated as we would have liked them to be it was fortunate—some perhaps would say providential—that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers happened to be meeting at this time, and in meeting represented the whole world in miniature, in microcosm as we think, because this is the great pride which all of us have in the Commonwealth.
Despite our differences on analyses of the cause, despite arguments which could have taken us to Christmas about the rights of it in Vietnam, it was because there was a united desire that we should proceed with an initiative for peace that I have been able to make this statement to the House tonight. I do not want to raise hopes too high. I do not think that any hon. Member has excessive hope of what can be achieved. It may be that we shall be rebuffed. It may be that one country or another will refuse to receive us. I hope not. It may be that some countries who receive us will be so negative and so intransigent that we shall not be able to secure conditions for a conference that will lead to a just, honourable and lasting peace.
I hope that these things will not be true, but even if they are I believe it better to have tried and failed than at this historic, critical moment for us not to have made the effort.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.